Redistribute Ben Stein’s money

Jimmy Kimmel called those who question the narrative on “climate change” “insane.” Count his friends and former co-hosts Ben Stein and Adam Carolla among the free-thinking deranged.

But for economist Ben Stein giving Kimmel his start in television, few would recognize the name Jimmy Kimmel today.

On Monday, May 2nd, talk show host Kimmel aired clips of scientists dropping the F-bomb after hundreds of movie theaters showed CFACT’s film Climate Hustle. Kimmel went on a rant that lasted two nights in which he stated that anyone who questions what they are told about climate change is basically “insane.”

To Kimmel, comparing real world temperature data to computer models, or checking claims that today’s weather is “extreme” against historical weather data is the equivalent of “denying” the existence of “yogurt.”

Kimmel deployed the secret weapon of lazy comedians everywhere, profanity; guaranteed to get a cheap laugh with no danger of the writers working up a sweat.

Hey Jimmy, why don’t you have your friend, mentor and well known climate questioner Ben Stein on your show and ask him?

A young Jimmy Kimmel got his big break in television in 1997 when he was hired to co-host the game show Win Ben Stein’s Money on Comedy Central for the princely starting salary of $550 per episode. Before that Kimmel had tried to get a career going in radio where he never achieved much success.

Kimmel’s got talent, but talent counts for nothing without a break. Win Ben Stein’s Money was the break Kimmel needed. Before long Stein and Kimmel were sharing an Emmy Award for best game show host.

The show was a lot of fun. Contestants would compete against each other, and then Stein himself, to win cash from a pool of money. What they didn’t win went to Stein. Kimmel and Stein would poke plenty of fun at each other, but the underlying premise that made it work is that Stein is both brilliant and a veritable storehouse of knowledge. Stein’s erudition is tough to deny.

In 1998, Ben Stein challenged the correspondents of The Daily Show to win his money and soundly defeated them. Stein defeated Stephen Colbert in the final round 6-4. We doubt any would have predicted at the time that two of the three legacy networks future late-night hosts were on Stein’s show that day.

However, Ben Stein, the author of numerous books on personal growth and finance, is in no hurry to redistribute his money, or yours, to advance climate policies that won’t meaningfully alter the temperature of the Earth.

In December, at the time of the UN climate talks in Paris (CFACT was there!), Stein appeared on the Neil Cavuto show and asked, “What if man-made climate change is a fraud?” After presenting the Green credentials he earned for having written the first speech on The “Clean Air Act” for the Nixon administration, Stein stated that, “Climate change is very much in question. The Earth stopped heating up about 25 years ago. The data that shows that the Earth is the hottest it’s been in 200 years or whatever, is very much in question because the data from 200 years ago is extremely specious. Yes, the polar ice cap in the North Pole is melting, but the polar ice cap in the South Pole is getting very very much bigger very rapidly… I can remember very well in the sixties and early seventies when we were fearing a new ice age. What if by any chance all this climate change: a – is not happening, or b – if it is happening is not man-made, or c- if it is man-made if it’s not coming from the U.S. but coming from China and India… and we’re going to crucify the American worker and the American businessman in the name of a false goal? … It’s not irrefutable.”

The Chinese “are the one’s ginning out all these pollutants that are supposedly causing global warming and they haven’t even promised to stop,” Stein continued, “they’ve just promised they’ll consider it at some point down the road.”

In April of 2016, Stein appeared again on Fox and asked, “why this hatred of the fossil fuel companies?” He answered his own question, “there is something deeply sick and psychologically awful about it. I think it has to do with the envy of the intellectual chattering class.”

Jimmy Kimmel should heed Ben Stein’s real concern. “I am more worried about saving political freedom,” Stein told Cavuto, “that appears to me to be the real thing we are in danger of losing.”

While he’s at it Kimmel might want to check in with another close friend and his former co-host at The Man Show, Adam Carolla, who described the idea that mankind is the primary driver of any climate change as a “bizarre form of narcissism.”

So how’s that for a show? Kimmel, Stein and Carolla discuss the climate and we’ll learn who’s politically correct and who’s factually correct. If you really want to open some minds and learn something invite Marc Morano, the host of Climate Hustle, on the show.

Follow that up with scientists. Match up Kimmel’s group with Doctors Roy Spencer, Dick Lindzen, Judith Curry, Fred Singer, Nils Axel Morner, Freeman Dyson, John Christy, Will Happer and David Legates for a start.

If anyone mouths off about flat Earth or denying the moon landing, throw in Apollo astronauts Walt Cunningham and Jack Schmitt for some real perspective. While you’ve got them in the studio, ask them how the Obama administration turned NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies into a propaganda organ for the climate campaign. Are America’s pioneers in space “insane” too?

Sorry you’ve been hustled about the climate, Jimmy. If you’re as smart as Ben Stein says you are, and willing to open your mind and host a fair discussion, you’ll learn. Once you learn the facts hopefully you won’t be so easily hustled again.

If you learn anything, Jimmy, how about this: If you insist on insulting the intelligence of one entire side of a public policy debate in order to silence them, be prepared to hurt some very fine and credible people; including people you know, respect, and care about. That’s “insane.”

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

923 Comments

CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight per molecule as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat producing 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy, starve the world, cause hunger, riots and wars?

There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover trapping heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses that admit and reflect energy depending on sun angle. Gases do not form surfaces as their molecules are not in contact.

The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, longest ever.

Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 rises followed temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Therefore temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against meat consumption.

Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”

Read the whole story in “Vapor Tiger” at Amazon.com, Kindle $2.99 including a free Kindle reading program for your computer.

Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.

Denis Ables
May 8, 2016 at 4:30 PM

Regarding the fact that the Medieval Warming Period was a global phenomenon and likely warmer than now….

If the 1,000+ peer-reviewed temperature studies, which represent the work of investigators and organizations from 40+ countries is not sufficient (links to all via co2science.org) for Kimmel, perhaps the 6,000 boreholes around the globe will help. (Boreholes perhaps not as accurate at temperature measurements, but very good at demonstrating that the MWP trend was global.)

Then there is the recent exposure by two receding glaciers (Mendenhall in Alaska, and another in the Alps) of splintered tree trunks still upright in their original position, the former dated about 1,000 years ago, the latter, about 4,000 years ago. Both demonstrate that trees have not been growing at that latitude for a very long time. Furthermore, trees are not known to grow anywhere near glaciers. Then there are the antique vineyards, also discovered at latitudes where grapes can no longer be grown. This evidence (which CANNOT be brushed aside as “anecdotal”) is DENIED by the alarmists because they cannot answer why it is cooler now than back then.

There is no empirical evidence showing that co2 has EVER (even over geologic periods) had any impact on our climate’s temprature, and co2 has been considerably higher than now during most of this planet’s existence.

The alarmist base their entire claim on two recent decades of warming, a miniscule (so insignificant) duration. Our current warming (such as it is) began NOT in the mid 1800s, but, by definition, at the bottom of the little ice age which took place in the mid 1600s. That’s 200 years of warming BEFORE co2 level began is rise (and also 200 years BEFORE our industrial revolution). … But it gets worse for the alarmists because co2 annual rate of increase (about 2ppmv) would have had to continue for about another century before it could possibly have impacted temperature measurements. That pushes natural warming from 1650 to about 1950. But… there was a mild cooling from the 40s to the mid 70s. The WARMING has taken place completely between about 1975 and 1998. Both our weather satellites show no further temperature increase right up to now, and that’s inspite of an El Nino which cranked up before midyear 2015 and is likely still underway.

The likely upcoming La Nina (a cooling) should cause even more consternation among those claiming their “science” is “settled”. That’s why they’re in such a hurry. They want to be able to claim that their actions have reversed the warming trend.

Kimmel: why do you suppose that neither NOAA nor NASA (both of whom using terrestrial data) NEVER even mention the two federally funded weather satellite data (which agrees quite well with balloon data)? Why did these government agencies last year quietly attempt to over-ride ocean data from 3,000 ARGO buoys (designed specifically for that job) by re-introducing older and dubious sea surface temperature data with known biases?

You are correct and all the temperature estimations for the Medieval warming, as there were no thermometers from 800 AD to 1300 AD, are from plant records of where they grew. Every plant has a specific number of “degree-days” needed to complete its season, make fruit or grain and knowing where they grew tells you what the daily temperatures had to be.

During that time they were growing wine grapes in northern England and that cannot be done now, for example.

Denis Ables
May 8, 2016 at 5:27 PM

What’s annoying about this is that alarmists want to know which of those studies, specifically, refute their claim. The real point is where are their studies backing their claim? After all, it only takes a half dozen studies remote from each other, so covering much of the globe, to show that the MWP was global. Not only are there many more than that, but confirming studies continue to come in almost weekly to co2science.org.

Rather ironic that these studies (not based on casual opinion or a poll) are by investigators, so would appear to provide an actual (and useful) “consensus”. The folks who pretend to understand scientific method but refuse to accept this evidence have to be considered LIARs.

Even Phil Jones, one of the IPCC players (at least during the ClimateGate scenario) has been quoted as saying “If the MWP was global that’s a whole different ballgame”. Strange, that a lay person (such as me) has no difficulty understanding the implications this evidence, when supposed experts continue to doubt……

It has been shown by the Vostok Ice Core Studies and plant growth/crop records in the far east (China) that the Medieval Warming period was indeed world wide. And, that was well known at the time Phil Jones made that comment so he was either exposing his own ignorance or arrogance, or both.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 3:24 AM

Phil probably read actual science literature (not sure what you’re reading) such as: Hughes, M.K., andH.F. Diaz. 1994.Was there a “Medieval Warm Period” and if so, where and when?Climate Change30:1-33.
Or: Jirikowic, J.L., andP.E. Damon. 1994.The Medieval solar activity maximum.Climate Change26:309-316.
MWP is not globally equivalent to today, and is mostly solar which would cause a warming troposphere and stratosphere, but has been predicted with greenhouse warming, and observed with modern warming, the troposphere warms, but the stratosphere cools. Big difference.

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 9:15 AM

Perhaps you’d like to discuss the obvious global MWP trend shown by 6,000 boreholes? Readers should understand that it would only take a few temperature assessments scattered around the globe to refute the alarmist lie that the MWP was not global. There is considerably more locations showing that trend (all links via co2science.org)

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 9:25 AM

Sure, I already did. I mentioned PAGES study which takes in boreholes, tree rings, speleothems, ice cores, sediment cores, corrals, . . . in other words, it’s a comprehensive overview not a cherry picked data set. Liking your cherries Dennis? You cherry pick, I give you general overview studies to show why you shouldn’t, you turn around and do it again. Fail.

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 1:42 PM

You continue to ignore the numerous studies (all accessible via links provided by co2science.org). You’re also not giving the reader anything specific.

In order for a scientist to claim that the MWP was NOT global, their “general” study must consist of temperature data from numerous locations around the globe, all showing no MWP trend. That’s impossible, of course, because it took 40+ countries and numerous investigators and organizations to establish the evidence which contradict your bogus “PAGES” claim. That’s without counting the 6,000 boreholes and such things as the recently exposed dated trees and the antique vineyards, also found at latitudes where no grapes can be grown now.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 1:44 PM

co2science is a website to cherry pick the story that you want to tell here. It is not an independent unbiased peer reviewed source. I gave you the PAGES study specifically. It is not bogus. It is considered the best summation of paleoclimate to date. You clearly are afraid to read it.

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 2:30 PM

co2science has all the studies. However, if you’d like to think all 1,000+ peer-reviewed studies are “cherry-picked’ to show the MWP was global, that should definitely amuse readers.

CB
May 17, 2016 at 1:36 PM

“co2science has all the studies.”

lol! “Studies”.

That site, as well as this one are paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the dangerous nature of their product.

Is it possible you’re too stupid to see a conflict of interest so obvious?

“CFACT has received over $4.1 million in funds from Donor’s Trust and Donor’s Capital Fund between 2002-2011, plus an additional $582,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998-2012”

That’s a cop-out. Why? Because skeptics can claim the same about the various alarmist facilities, certainly about your website, and also about government “scientific” agencies (which are invariably run by political appointees.) So, that leaves us with NOTHING.

The studies provided by co2science involve 40+ countries, and numerous investigators. Few, if any, have any other connection to co2science which, on this issue, is merely performing a library function. That’s over 1,000 peer-reviewed studies at last count (which has been some while ago). I would think the worst case scenario would be that co2science has collected only those studies which confirm its particular bias. So what? The links provide names of organizations and researchers and their reports, and the results conflict with alarmist claims.

But, it’s the alarmists who have claimed that the MWP was regional and not all that warm, apparently in a desperate attempt to fend off the truth. However, they are OBLIGATED to provide justification for THEIR claim. (That’s the way science is supposed to work, and so far you’ve provided NOTHING!)

How many such studies do you believe are necessary to prove that the MWP was global ? I would think even half a dozen such studies, if each is remote from the others would suffice to render the alarmist claim (that MWP was regional) very DUBIOUS, ( if not an outright LIE.) Also, keep in mind that not every study hits pay dirt. There are almost invariably at least some small areas where global climate phenomenon is not obvious.

Are you also assuming that the 6,000 boreholes which confirm that the MWP was global were all done by the evil fossil fuel folks? What about the evidence recently exposed by two receding glaciers (Mendenhall in Alaska and one in the Alps), both now showing splintered tree trunks still in their upright position (and dated, respectively, 1,000 years and 4,000 years? And how about the ancient vineyards found where grapes cannot be grown even today?

All that aside, and no surprise, you did manage to ignore my request for evidence to support your belief (the IPCC claim.)

CB
May 17, 2016 at 2:18 PM

“skeptics can claim the same about the various alarmist facilities”

Sure! Crazy people can claim whatever they want!

…but if they are suggesting there exists a worldwide conspiracy that’s persisted for over a century without detection, is that likely to be persuasive, Denis?

“The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Denis Ables
May 17, 2016 at 2:30 PM

Skeptics are claiming that the alarmists are wrong. It’s not unusual that alarmists (by definition) are making lots of noise. There is a lot of money involved (much more, actually, than fossil fuel contributions.)

And, you seem to be claiming that skeptics are involved in some kind of conspiracy…..?

“Heat trapping” by co2 was determined by an experiment in a closed chamber, a greenhouse. That is hardly representative of the open atmosphere, where satellites detect heat escaping to space. Neither are there any planetary feedbacks (think oceans), within a greenhouse.

So far, you’re all bloviation, but you haven’t been capable of providing any empirical evidence that co2 has EVER had any impact on the planet’s global temperature (even over geologic periods, when co2 level was 2,000+ppmv most of the time). Neither have you provided any evidence supporting the alarmist claim that the MWP was merely regional.

Don’t keep us waiting.

Bart_R
May 19, 2016 at 11:20 AM

Can you provide us with examples of ‘alarm’ being valuable?

One supposes from your usage that anyone who gives, or heeds, any alarm is an ‘alarmist’.

Can you think of examples of this version of skepticism of yours that have proven to fail?

Now, to me, it would be most useful to use words in a way that doesn’t render them merely meaningless insults, just devil words and angel words of propaganda; from my point of view I’d only use ‘alarmist’ to identify some disproportionate or inappropriate usage of alarm, and ‘skeptic’ to identify someone who practiced evenhanded skepticism without ulterior agenda or group bias.

So, I’d have to reject your usages, which I can only term manipulations. Making you a manipulator.

If I said anthing it would be that the alarmists are not basing their belief on the science, obviously

You do understand that as the co2 level rises it becomes less effective as a greenhouse gas? In fact, at this point it has basically consumed nearly all of the sun energy bandwidth available to it. Further increases in co2 level will have such a minimal impact as to be unmeasurable.

Incidentally, you’re at NASA, why do some of your folks talk about the “hottest” month when the difference between recent years is so miniscule that it’s well within the uncertainty error? Ask then why they ignore the satellite data (which agrees quite well with weather balloon data?)

Also, aren’t you the same CB who always jumps in about Venus, and who doesn’t understand the basic gas equation?

CB
May 21, 2016 at 6:51 PM

“You do understand that as the co2 level rises it becomes less effective as a greenhouse gas?”

Yes!

The relationship between greenhouse gasses and planetary temperature is roughly logarithmic.

Does a logarithmic function have an upper bound, Denis?

Do you think there might be a reason I keep pointing you to the fact that CO₂ makes the surface of Venus hot enough to melt lead?

A runaway greenhouse effect is what makes Venus even hotter than Mercury!”

You have to remind yourself that just because something is said on the internet – even if it is said on a page from a source that may be otherwise authoritative – it is not necessarily correct.

As on Earth, where the hottest temperatures ever measured were measured in places of extremely LOW elevation, the surface temperature of Venus is largely determined by atmospheric PRESSURE just as it is here on Earth when we’re talking about temperature records which, curiously, tend to occur at places where higher surface TEMPERATURES occur during times of higher surface PRESSURE.

There’s a simple reason for this, as people who understand basic physics know. Perhaps you might want to study basic physics more and spend less time spreading lies, talking points and propaganda on line.

cshorey
July 26, 2016 at 11:17 PM

This is an incomplete assessment again. You have not taken the albedo of the Venusian atmosphere into account at all. There is definitely a higher pressure, but when you look at the total W/m^2 getting to the surface, you have to explain how that thicker atmosphere retains so much of the meager energy coming in. A 98% CO2 atmosphere sure helps, and you need to take account of that, or else yo don’t understand Venus.

It’s fairly clear that any assessment that does not fit your chosen world view will not be acceptable to you.

The key facts you are overlooking are many, I will touch on just a few:

If you know anything about the emission curves of the Earth and Venus, indeed about general emission curves, you will know that the amount of energy leaving the surface of the Earth in the narrow bands covered by CO2 is much less than the amount of energy leaving the surface of Venus in those bands. This is basic physics, isn’t it? Do we need to go deeper into it or will you stipulate that fact is essentially correct even if I’ve not put it in technical terms to your satisfaction?

If you know anything about the composition of the atmospheres of Earth and Venus you will now there are many orders of magnitude more water vapor, which has a much stronger ability to temporarily absorb IR energy over much of the IR spectrum than does carbon dioxide. You also should know that there are other ways that water vapor carries energy right past what little CO2 is in the atmosphere in the first place.

Which brings us to the fact that I’ve already mentioned, which you have ignored, concerning the actual presence of CO2 and also the actual change. This is often expressed by those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism in ways which are clearly deliberately intended to fool those who really are essentially clueless about these issues into believing that both the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere and the change in that amount are significant – when they in fact ARE NOT, because a change from 3 molecules per 10,000 to 4 molecules per 10,000 is an insignificant change and in fact the amount of either 3 or 4 per 10,000 is also insignificant, given the other constituents present. Further, you can’t compare the atmosphere of Earth to that of Venus (yet you still do) because one has essentially next to NO CO2 and the other has essentially ONLY CO2, it could be argued.

Albedo – yes the clouds of Venus tend to reflect a great deal of radiation – but due to the much closer proximity to the sun and other factors, chief among these there is no hydrologic cycle in Venus to assist with transporting and shedding heat, and t here is no water vapor to do the heavy lifting with regards to both the slowing of heat loss on the one hand and the speeding of heat loss on the other – it is easy to see why the planet would be so much hotter. I find those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism tend to focus on single aspects and fail to discuss or admit that atmospheric physics is a complex interplay of a number of processes.

Finally you’re really trying to compare the clouds on Venus with those on Earth? They’re made up of totally different chemicals, causing them to have totally different properties – I find it difficult to believe a person who is both educated and honest would attempt to make such a comparison.

you have to explain how that thicker atmosphere retains so much of the meager energy

Again you are completely missing the point – heat is a function of pressure as well, not just what is coming in and what is being retained. But the very thing you’re stuck on, the albedo, which is the result of clouds, is part of the answer perhaps? While it is a poor example (as I’ve said above) because you really can’t compare the clouds (or atmospheres) of Earth and Venus in meaningful ways due to their significantly different compositions, we do see on Earth that clouds can both improve and impede the progress of energy that is escaping from the surface of the Earth to space depending on what type of clouds we’re talking about and where they are.

So the simple question back to you is this: Compared to Earth, considering both the surface areas of both planets and the time aspect, over a given 24 hour period, on average, what percentage of the Earth is covered in clouds that tend to retain IR energy and what percentage of Venus is covered in clouds that tend to retain IR energy.

Also as a follow up, it seems the atmosphere of Venus tends (from what I’ve understood) to be somewhat static – not completely, mind you, but somewhat invariant to a great degree, from what we’ve been able to measure, at least in a gross sense. Not so with the Earth and it’s atmosphere – thanks in part to the major differences in atmospheric (and for that matter surface) aspects of both planets, the Earth is clearly a much more dynamic place with many more processes changing over time in a constantly shifting and awe-inspiring, complex dance which, clearly, is a key part of why those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism have gotten so much so wrong so often. Starting with wildly overestimating both CO2’s effects along with the resulting climate sensitivity and going right on through the failure to understand and admit to the key role of water vapor (because they can blame evil corporations that have deep pockets for the former but not the latter) and other clearly robust negative feedbacks – and let’s also not forget the apparently incorrect radical and clearly incorrect minimization of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

cshorey
July 30, 2016 at 7:32 AM

Here you didn’t take thermal equilibrium into account and think of heat as a more static entity. Again, Mr. Frog, you have shown insufficient knowledge to discuss this competently.

Man, thank you for continuing to mention that you’re so much smarter than me. Someone reading our comments, were you not to continually reassure yourself and them of that alleged fact, would never know otherwise.

When a person is secure in their own knowledge I find they rarely/never feel the need to remind others of how much smarter they are than everyone else. However, on the other hand, the narcissists I know are continually pointing out how much smarter, more interesting, better looking and just all around BETTER they are than everyone.

“Man, thank you for continuing to mention that you’re so much smarter than me.” Proper grammar would be “smarter than I” 😉 What I’ve been saying is you are not as knowledgeable in climate science, and, in fact, demonstrating such deficiencies that you are having a tremendous trouble making any cogent argument, nor understanding of my replies. That is a statement on your climate science smarts, not general smarts. I’m sure there are areas you know more about than I. Step up the dialogue. And look into the water vapor feedback a la Svante Arrhenius.

Gary Ashe
March 31, 2017 at 8:53 PM

I/ve read the whole exchange so far, and you have provided nothing factual to the debate, typical young progressive, knows it all, yet knows nothing, and makes alot of well written adolescent noise doing it, you are a whole generation of man children, worthless t0ssers the lot of you.

LTJ
October 11, 2017 at 8:45 AM

Actually, despite the unnecessary hostilities, both of these gentlemen have added much of value to the discussion. You, on the other hand, distract and detract from its value.

I think I already answered this one, but if not, it is an answer to a detailed post by me and, frankly, your response, other than another obvious ad hominem attack, doesn’t really begin to address anything I said.

It does contain one blatant falsehood and some really convoluted logic all rolled into one:

you didn’t take thermal equilibrium into account and think of heat as a more static entity.

You are the one talking about “equilibrium”, which implies at least a somewhat static state. I am talking about dynamic systems though you’re right, for the very reasons I gave, the density and consistency of the atmosphere of Venus, there is some tendency to reach an equilibrium point and to tend to remain static around that point – though here you seem to claim otherwise and to attempt to ridicule ideas and concepts you expressed as well, shooting yourself in both feet in the process.

So, regarding your statement about equilibrium, are you claiming the temperature of Venus does not change? Are you claiming that there is no heat flow between the Venusian atmosphere and space? Not really sure what you are getting at here because, as usual, you’re just throwing out terms that, due to the way you used them, it appears you might not really know what they mean.

Where is it that you’re claiming that some system is in thermal equilibrium with itself because the temperature within the system is spatially and temporally uniform? Or, in other words, static? Even though you go on and accuse ME of falsely believing it is static, when I never said or suggested that, YOU DID!

Ribbet

cshorey
August 1, 2016 at 8:35 PM

To say you have insufficient knowledge to discuss this competently is not ad hominem. You misunderstand this basic logical fallacy as well. I am attacking your ideas, not you. When you post that I am a narcissist with no psychological testing nor any expertise in identification of such, you are performing an ad hominem. You attacked the man, not the ideas. See the difference? Now, you have admitted that CO2 on Venus causes the wildly high temperatures there. You admit it can retain heat in an atmosphere from what I can see, but let me address that in my next response where it is more directly concerned. And when I call you Mr. Frog it is for two reasons: you are not an enlightened being and do not deserve the title you narcissistically gave yourself (note I didn’t dare call you narcissistic as that would be ad hominem). I say that naming yourself enlightened or such is just self aggrandizing, and if you can’t back it up, I won’t call you that. Secondly, you are like the frog in the water slowly heating up and saying nothing is wrong. If you find this offensive, then realize it was in response to you calling me a chicken little claiming the sky was falling. And I like frogs too. Remember you started this conversation with me, and I’ve continued it out of a certain level of respect that you might be able to learn something in our discussions. I learn from discussion here, and you taught me that I need to check my references a bit more and not rely solely on memory.

Pointing out that the repeated things you post demonstrate the traits commonly associated with narcissism is not an attack on you personally, merely pointing out that the things you post demonstrate the traits commonly associated with narcissism, which are readily available for review on the web.

Your claims I have “insufficient knowledge” are unsupported and are clearly attempts to simply call me an idiot in polite terms. However, since I know I’m not an idiot and I do have sufficient knowledge they’re a waste of time as they might make you feel better by reassuring yourself you’re smarter than me (and you may in fact be) but they don’t prove anything about me except perhaps you’ve formed yet another false opinion about me, just as you’ve demonstrated so many other false opinions about other things.

I’ve “admitted” that the ATMOSPHERE on Venus causes the high temperatures. If it were water vapor instead of CO2 there would still be high temperatures, though one has to look at the DENSITY of water vapor compared to CO2 to determine just how that change might change the temperature there. That atmosphere happens to be mostly CO2, as does the atmosphere of Mars. And yet on Mars, with a much less dense atmosphere, but still mostly CO2, we don’t see such extremely high temperatures – which is the point you seem to ignore.

I did not give myself this screen name – in fact when someone else suggested it I actively fought against accepting it but eventually I found the arguments compelling, for reasons not relevant here.

And nice how you clearly make an attempt to call me narcissistic in a roundabout way, then claim you’re not calling me a narcissist! As before, the streak of dishonesty continues in your posts, strong as ever!

And still with the Mr. Frog! You know I’ve told you that you’re welcome to call me whatever you want as it does not bother me and it does reveal the true nature of your character!

(Ribbet!)

I am very happy in a slowly heating world – everything I’ve seen to date, and presented here, and note that you’ve failed to rebut in any way, suggests a warmer, wetter world is a better world. And more CO2 is clearly better, too. This isn’t in dispute, it’s been observed, proven.

If I called you chicken little, which I don’t believe I did, then I take it back. But I believe I said something more to the effect of “people who claim the sky is falling LIKE CHICKEN LITTLE”. Or at least that was my intent, so if I was careless and actually called you chicken little then by all means I take it back, as I said. I’m not going to bother to look at the exact quote. Feel free to find and share it if the above is not sufficient.

My interpretation of all the semantics, name-calling and such is that it is the same I usually see from people who are determined not to actually discuss the issues, for whatever reason.

cshorey
August 4, 2016 at 12:36 PM

And if Venus’ atmosphere were all N2 . . . density would make no difference. That’s what you’re missing while playing armchair psychologist. A narcissist is not someone who has expertise in a field and tries to help a lost soul find true enlightenment. Sorry you don’t like being corrected.

Actually I would much rather be corrected than go on saying something that’s demonstrably false.

if Venus’ atmosphere were all N2 . . . density would make no difference.

This is false. While our atmosphere is not “all N2” it is practically all N2 (78%) and O2 (21%) and we see the effect I’m talking about in many places. Example:

When a parcel of air descends to a lower altitude it experiences adiabatic heating – likewise on Venus part of the extreme temperature, as admitted by those who aren’t fixated on falsehoods, is due to the DENSITY and the SURFACE PRESSURE that results. I’m guessing you don’t have much experience with air compressors and the temperature changes that occur in tandem with the compression or decompression of masses of gasses.

Specific example:

SANTA ANA WINDS:

– originate from cool, dry high-pressure air masses

– as the air descends from higher elevation to lower, it is heated adiabatically, warming about 5 °F for each 1,000 feet it descends

Specific example:

The hottest surface air temperatures tend to be measured at low altitudes. It is demonstrated that even without air movement, as you gain altitude in our atmosphere, you generally see a temperature decrease in the troposphere – the exception being a weather generated inversion layer, a temporary event that disrupts the general observation.

Specific example:

The highest point on Venus, Maxwell Montes, is the coolest point on Venus, with a temperature of about 655 K (380 °C) and an atmospheric pressure of about 4.5 MPa (45 bar). This despite the fact that the atmosphere is the same there as everywhere else on the planet, demonstrating the difference is due to density alone, not the amount of nitrogen that is or isn’t present.

I cannot say whether it is your urge to be right, your urge to find support for your chosen views even where it does not exist, or the simple fact your knowledge is so demonstrably deficient in so many ways that leads you to error, but you now have yet another chance to admit you’re wrong and start being right. I know you can do it, you’ve done it once, but can you, will you, again?

So is the fact you completely fail to understand the gravity of the fact that the density of the Venusian atmosphere is so much greater than that of Earth’s atmosphere and the many ways this fact affects the surface temperature of Venus as opposed to that of Earth.

you have to explain how that thicker atmosphere retains so much of the meager energy coming in.

Wow, you know the answer even though you don’t know you know it!

cshorey
July 30, 2016 at 7:31 AM

Wrong again Mr. Frog. The fact that the Venusian atmosphere is denser at the surface is only a part of the issue here. Venus is at about 0.72 astronomical units from the sun vs. Earth at 1.0, which means the solar constant for Venus is 645 W/m^2 compared to 342 W/m^2. Here’s what happens when you DO take albedo into account. Earth albedo is around 0.31 compared to venus at around 0.8. So the amount of energy that gets into the Earth’s climate system is about 242 W/m^2 compared to Venus with only 130 W/m2. So it is definitely the atmosphere of Venus that has the extra heating effect. If this thicker atmosphere were made out of N2 only, then Venus would be colder than Earth, but Venus has a 98% CO2 atmosphere, and as has been shown for over a century, CO2 is a greenhouse gas which retains more heat in the lower atmosphere until it reaches a new thermal equilibrium. So Venus is a good example of how far a greenhouse effect can go and should be a lesson for Mr. Frog on Earth. See if you can bring your dialog up to this level of scientific discourse.

I’ll get back to you on the rest, but I felt compelled to point out that calling me “Mr. Frog” does not bother me (I like frogs) but it does make you look petty, childish, foolish and a number of other negative things too numerous to list. By all means, if you wish to continue to present yourself as such, carry on!

So a drop in a greater amount of long wave being more than a smaller drop on another planet is not some kind of proof that there is no retention on that second planet?

I never said that – but you did!

This is a typical straw man – based no doubt on the fact you jump to WRONG conclusions about what I think and probably if you haven’t already you will misstate things I post as well – at least that is what typically happens when I try to discuss these things with anyone who is full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism.

Ribbet.

Wrong again Mr. Frog… Wrong Mr. Frog, so wrong. So Venus is a good example of how far a greenhouse effect can go and should be a lesson for Mr. Frog on Earth. See if you can bring your dialog up to this level of scientific discourse.

Don’t you mean DOWN to this level?

Anyway, you just posted a lot of stuff that certainly is true about an atmosphere made of mostly CO2 that is as DENSE as that of VENUS which is going to have (as we observe) completely different results for Venus than our INCOMPARABLE atmosphere has for Earth.

You cannot continue to expect me to believe that claiming the results from of an atmosphere that is as DENSE as that of Venus, composed of MOSTLY CO2, are applicable to an atmosphere that is MOSTLY N2 and O2 where the DENSITY is much lower as you just proved otherwise.

And I actually agree with you, at least in part, concerning much if not most or all of what you said here, other than that.

The key issue we seem to have is you seem to, at least you’ve convinced me that you continue to fail to acknowledge the role density plays in temperature – which is the one aspect of both atmospheres that is similar enough to be relevant to any discussion comparing the two, as both no doubt feature this well understood process. It’s not the density itself, since the density of the atmosphere of Venus is so much greater, but the effect density has on temperature. You know, adiabatic heating and cooling. You don’t seem to recognize or account for these processes in your otherwise fairly interesting post.

And, to reiterate, my only other major issue is your apparent belief that an atmosphere that is essentially entirely composed of CO2 is a relevant model for an atmosphere that consists mainly of N2 and O2. It is not. Might as well compare the atmosphere and surface temperature of Mars with that of Earth and start drawing other equally false conclusions.

Hey, wait a minute here… the atmosphere of Mars is ALSO MOSTLY CO2! Now I’m being a bit facetious here, since I know the answer, but using your logic and explanation of the overwhelming power of CO2, why isn’t Mars much hotter than it is?

And you maybe should take albedo into account in your considerations.

And maybe the density as well, as I’ve been suggesting from the start.

I think I also answered this one, but I think I intentionally left something out so I’ll add it here.

I don’t think I gave you credit for admitting the density of the atmosphere is significant, though you tried to belittle it.

You were the one that brought up albedo – and yet it seems you’re discounting a major part of the physical process that is the player here. For it works in both directions.

I did mention, in another post, that the location and type of clouds of water vapor here on Earth causes some of them to be a positive feedback while others are a negative feedback.

The same clouds on Venus that block some of the incident sunlight, thus preventing some solar heating, also inhibit the escaping IR energy. I hesitate to say they “trap” it, even though they are a physical layer, though not a fully solid one, because it eventually gets out. Let’s just say they delay it.

You stated that:

it is definitely the atmosphere of Venus that has the extra heating effect.

No, the atmosphere does not produce any heat, other than as I said, adiabatic perhaps. And it’s gravity that’s doing that, essentially.

Your statements do tend to prove that your understanding is flawed in key ways. For here you suggest you believe that the atmosphere is creating heat when in fact it is merely delaying the loss of heat that comes from other sources.

And you have the unmitigated gall to suggest I need to bring my dialog up, as you childishly call me names and continue to reveal your own need to convince yourself you’re so much smarter than me by saying so.

Ribbet.

cshorey
August 3, 2016 at 4:50 PM

Glad you got that clouds can act in both positive and negative feedbacks. That is true. The most recent work (look into Andy Dressler’s work from Texas A&M) indicates the overall feedbacks are positive.
Now when I say it is definitely the atmosphere that has the extra heating effect I am talking about heat retention, not formation. You followed my W/m^2 from the sun, so why didn’t you get that? I’ll use the WAG principle and say it is because you like to give people you disagree with the worst benefit of the doubt. No, the atmosphere does not produce any heat, and to say it does so adiabatically is to not understand that word. It means a change in temperature without an exchange of heat energy, so again, you don’t produce heat adiabatically. Sounded sciencey though. Your statements do show that you have too limited of an understanding to judge my comments properly. So with more unmitigated gall I say to you Mr. Frog (since you don’t like that should I just shorten your pretentious moniker to BS?) step up the dialogue; you are failing at every turn.

You seem to believe I do not accept that CO2 interacts with a couple very narrow bands of IR energy such that it can delay the passage of energy in those bands from the surface of the Earth (or rather from any point in the atmosphere) to outer space.

Relax. I know it does.

Now, given the known abundance of of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere (ppmv) and in the Venusian atmosphere, express as a ratio the difference.

Another way to express what YOU are ignoring or at least doing a bunch of hand waving to avoid considering.

Everything you bring up is involved – but as with what is going on here on Earth, as I find is typical of those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, you insist that we only discuss the things you think support your conclusions and you stubbornly refuse to discuss in any detail the things that easily refute what you believe.

I’m willing to discuss anything and if you stop assuming I disagree with everything you say you will find that I’m willing to stipulate a lot of the things you believe are correct, at least to some degree – but experience shows us that they do not lead to the conclusions you claim, as evidenced by the recent statements by the IPCC and by several noted “climate scientists” (at least that’s what they claim to be – has anyone actually bothered to see what their degrees are?), including but not limited to Michael Mann, one of the fathers of the now debunked “hockey schtick”:

… the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

Please explain how, if CO2 is the only significant determinant, or even the dominant determinant, of the admittedly incorrectly named “greenhouse effect” (which I’m not disputing, just disputing the silly, misleading, FALSE name it was given) and the resulting SURFACE WARMING, how it is that when there was less CO2 there was more surface warming and when there was more CO2 there was less surface warming.

And please, don’t tell me the monster is hiding under the bed, or in the closet. We’re adults.

cshorey
July 30, 2016 at 8:55 AM

First, the entire greenhouse warming we have on the planet of about 30 C is all due to trace gasses. N2, O2, Ar, He, H make up over 99.9% of the atmosphere and are unable to interact with long wave radiation. The larger molecules of H2O, CO2, O3, CH4, NOx . . . can and are called both trace gasses and greenhouse gasses. What Arhennius showed in the late 1800’s was that though H2O caused most of that 30C warming, it could not drive climate change because it’s atmospheric concentration is tied to the oceans’ surface temperature. If you were to magically remove all water vapor, or add much more, it would rapidly come back to 0.25% specific humidity. With water only having a 10 day residence time in the atmosphere, it can’t be a climate driver, but it can act as a feedback mechanism. CO2 on the other hand has a residence time closer to 150 years though that is a floating number as the oceans buffer in their ability to absorb atmospheric CO2. It can drift away from previous values and won’t come snapping back to equilibrium in a few days like water. We started pre-industrially with 280 ppm CO2 and are now at 400. Each extra molecule can absorb thermal IR photons and throw them in a randomized direction which means statistically half is back down to the ground and this is how it retains heat.
Now, did you read the paper from Nature you posted. It is behind a pay wall, so do you really have access? If you read this paper you would have your answer. When energy is retained in the climate system, it might go to warming the surface atmosphere, but it can also go into making the wind blow, making ice melt, heating the land, HEATING THE OCEANS! Over 90% of the retained energy is being retained in the oceans according to the paper you linked to. And so ocean oscillations can cause surface temperature to wiggle around as the increasing CO2 continues to capture heat. Does this help?

Typically I find that the atmosphere of the Earth is stated to consist of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen by volume. These values are rounded – nitrogen slightly down and oxygen slightly up. All the trace gasses fall within the final 1%. As you suggest, but in different words, some of the trace gasses (Ar, He, H were the examples you gave) are either not present in significant quantities or do not interact significantly with IR radiation to merit much discussion here. There are some gasses you did not mention, I’ll mention CH4 (methane) as one that alternately is mentioned as having an important role in the retention of heat by the atmosphere by some while others discount it’s role for various reasons, perhaps at their peril.

You will probably disagree (with part of my logic regarding the bolded part here) when I point out that the most abundant and perhaps most important trace gas is dihydrogen monoxide, or water vapor. It’s abundance varies both temporally and spatially. You might guess that it is most abundant near the equator and in the warm or wet places of the Earth and least abundant near the poles and the cold or dry places. Contrary to the myth, water vapor, not carbon dioxide, is the key greenhouse gas. One argument against this FACT is that water vapor continually cycles into and out of the atmosphere but this (latent heat exchange) is exactly why it is more significant in the uptake, transport/redistribution and both retention and eventual loss of heat. It, not carbon dioxide, plays the dominant role in determining the eventual temperature of the Earth overall from time to time and indeed from place to place as well.

A big deal is often made of the fact carbon dioxide has increased over the last 150 years or so by as much as 36% (or whatever the current number they’re using is) but this is typical misdirection since the change was from an insignificant 270 ppmv to an insignificant 400 ppmv.

So these two gasses (H2O and CO2 – and others as well) are called “greenhouse gasses” though as I’ve said, and I won’t belabor, this is a serious error and really should be rectified as it creates a lot of the misunderstanding that plagues this sort of discussion and kills any hope for progress and understanding – indeed if you ask anyone who is not well educated and even some that are, they will say there is a “layer” or that heat is “trapped” when neither is the case. Moving on. But doing so in a second post stating where I left off.

What Arhennius showed in the late 1800’s was that though H2O caused most of that 30C warming, it could not drive climate change because it’s atmospheric concentration is tied to the oceans’ surface temperature.

This is exactly the sort of pretzel logic (your term) that prevents us from moving forward. You seem to me to be stipulating that most of the warming that makes the Earth habitable is caused by water vapor, but that water vapor cannot produce any more warming. Yet even the IPCC and those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism acknowledge that more CO2 will not significantly heat the Earth, just as the climate realists have said, for which they get falsely labeled as deniers FOR AGREEING WITH THE IPCC ON THIS NARROW POINT, but will allow water vapor to be more abundant and that water vapor will do the bulk of any actual heating that eventually occurs as CO2 rises. This is the whole “forcing/feedback” argument in a nutshell instead of the usual pretzel logic that is usually used.

And in a warming world we have seen in the past that the atmospheric CO2 and the temperature tend to move together as if one drives the other – a point often misrepresented by those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism since, generally, what was inferred from various proxies was that temperature rises then CO2 rises, suggesting that the former drives the latter if there is a general cause-and-effect relationship – and this was clearly seen a number of times, at least 16 I believe. But it’s not that simple – these two things do not exist in a vacuum, there are other factors that play roles as well. Indeed we see at least two times I believe you mentioned (as opposed to 16 or so that I refer to here without listing them) that CO2 began to rise first, we believe, and temperature followed. Which, if the rising CO2 DID drive an increase in water vapor, would make sense. But which also could suggest other factors dominated these two times which are more the exception than the rule.

So do we measure, do we actually observe an increase in water vapor over the last several decades since this issue – the claim CO2 increase will drive a water vapor increase which will in turn cause catastrophic heating – was first said to be the most important crisis we face today?

We need to explore the carbon cycle, the relative contributions of that part of nature that is human and the rest of nature at some point, but perhaps not now. Now I will just point out that we’ve seen at least 16 times when temperature increased and CO2 followed. Is this a fair, accurate statement? And if you plot the Moberg et al., 2005 temperature increase on the same graph with the Law Dome CO2 record it appears that CO2 started rising nearly 100 years after the temperature started rising. I won’t base my conclusions on that alone – we need to explore further.

I do want to reiterate that, given the fact (says NOAA, not me, so if this is an issue, take it up with them, not me) that atmospheric CO2 has tended to rise and fall without any human help by 100+ ppmv over the past 400,000 years, multiple times, with the rise part of each sawtooth being somewhat dramatic, rapid, another myth told by those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, the one that insists the slow, steady CO2 increase we are observing now is somehow unprecedented, alarming and must be anthropogenic in nature, bites the dust.

Absolutely correct. But the atmosphere isn’t a lab experiment. Water vapor is by far the most powerful “greenhouse” gas. I believe data supports that a change in water vapor in the atmosphere of 1% would erase any effect of the increase in CO2 we have seen. As it is we can’t differentiate the effect of increased CO2 from naturally occurring climate change.

CB
May 23, 2016 at 4:12 PM

“Water vapor is by far the most powerful “greenhouse” gas.”

…is a well-known Climate Denier talking point!

It’s true, of course, but ignores the fact that water vapour is a multiplier of the warming effect of other greenhouse gasses.

“Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.”

CB you really should spend more time studying climate science that making meaningless comments on climate sites.

Sound science is not a product of where the money comes from but of the integrity and dedication of the people performing it. If you stuck on who finances what then consider that almost all the proponents of man-made climate change are financed by government or businesses that would benefit in some way from wind, solar or taxes on CO2.

Most of CB’s comments are direct cut and paste bits from one particular leftist site that is full of lies, propaganda and talking points.

They cannot argue against the science so they use all forms of attacks against us for posting the truth and our sources for giving the facts to us. This is all hand waving and obvious refusal to enter into a reasonable, honest discussion of the facts.

One of the worst arguments ever is the “because you use fossil fuels you can’t argue against it”. When the cultural infrastructure has been set one way, there is tremendous inertia to moving it to a another source and delivery platform. If there are good reasons to do this, then those that realize it must speak out, even while they live in that cultural milieu. We can ride our bikes and conserve energy where we can, but can’t escape the government subsidized industry, until we unite and realize that moving away from carbon based industry is wise on so many levels. At the very least remove the monetary incentives from all forms of energy and let them compete equally. History says we should probably subsidize alternative sources and invest in R&D until the best solutions pan out.

One of the worst arguments ever is the “because you use fossil fuels you can’t argue against it”.

That is your argument, not mine, and I agree it is silly, “pretzel logic”.

The argument I’ve presented that is apparently not expressed in the terms you need to understand it, which you’ve clearly misinterpreted, is that the people who claim WE need to cut down OUR fossil fuel use (and, curiously, are the same people who RAIL against the rich, among other things, though they’ve done nothing but use this to enrich themselves) are the same ones who have done nothing but INCREASE their fossil fuel use. I have never argued that you have to cease all fossil fuel use in order to argue that we can do better. The only question is whether you misrepresent me because I failed to express myself in words and ways you could understand or you let your hatred and contempt for anyone who dares disagree with your own chosen dogma blind you to what I’m trying to say.

I think we were once on a potential path to getting off fossil fuels but then the same people who are against them are also against any reasonable, viable short-term alternative – chief among these being nuclear. Yes, the early designs of nuclear plants were often inadequate and also poorly sited, but to be realistic nuclear energy is an important part of any mix that will get us off fossil fuels in the short term. This was even admitted recently by some on your side of this debate – and they were viciously attacked for admitting it. I wish I had the exact reference handy – I will try to find and present it. My recollection is it was Hansen from NASA/GISS that said we have to reconsider nuclear energy – but I could be mistaken. I will come back to this topic later perhaps.

The problem, one problem anyway, with the usual alternatives is they are not “always available”. Solar only works when the sun shines, wind turbine generators only work when the wind blows. Plus they usually draw the usual NIMBY responses which delay them, drive the costs up or flat out prevent them from being implemented. Finally when the battle to stop the construction of the power generation capability is lost the NIMBYs switch to opposing the infrastructure needed to get that power to market – see attempts to prevent development of geothermal fields in the Brawley Seismic Zone by opposing the Sunrise Powerlink, an effort that ultimately failed but did manage to significantly increase the project cost, complexity and the area affected despite a chief complaint being environmental impact – their efforts to stop or delay the project massively multiplied the impacted area of the project.

When the cultural infrastructure has been set one way, there is tremendous inertia to moving it to a another source and delivery platform.

True, but often for quite valid reasons. Solar energy, frankly, is not mature – but it’s getting there. And there are efforts to create the sort of distributed solar systems that will in the long run be a valid way to reduce dependence on fossil fuels or other sources WHEN THE SUN IS SHINING. Improvements in battery technology or other storage methods (California uses excess power to pump water up high then uses it to generate hydroelectric power when the sun isn’t shining, though this is inefficient in the long run) may help bring solar into the mix in a meaningful way in our lifetime.

But solar and wind have drawbacks – whether it’s some lizard, some tortoise or the fact both tend to kill birds, these forms of energy generation have their valid and reasonable opposition, often from the same people demanding we get off fossil fuels.

And, so far, there is NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE of the actual probability of any impending catastrophe those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism keep saying is already here. Sheesh, since I was a little kid – no, strike that, SINCE BEFORE I WAS BORN – there have been people predicting gloom and doom (Paul Ehrlich, Rachel Carson, M. King Hubbert, James Hansen, Al Gore) but when you examine their claims – particularly their predictions which are already testable – you find they’ve failed or that there is no way that what they predict could come true as they claimed.

SO far, and I’ve presented the evidence and will again if you claim to have missed it – more CO2 and warmer temperatures prove to be overall GOOD FOR THE BIOSPHERE. Also GOOD FOR HUMAN CIVILIZATION. Is there any bad with the good? Well perhaps – but not anything like what is claimed by those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism.

Take coral for instance – it seems you studied cave formations, not corals, but from what I’ve learned there have been repeated mass near extinction (if not outright full extinction) events of global coral repeatedly that are well documented, literally written into stone as it were. So yes, we are seeing some stresses in some corals in some places – but this isn’t anything that hasn’t happened before and claims “this time it’s different” fail when the evidence shows they’ve not only been stressed before, but have apparently all but disappeared from the oceans.

I think this post is long enough – if there are other points you made to address, I’ll do a 2nd reply.

cshorey
July 30, 2016 at 7:36 AM

Glad to know it isn’t your argument as it seemed to be when you said, “You might be able to claim you’re not a hypocrite if you didn’t depend on fossil fuels and their many derivative products DAILY.” Glad to know you don’t really mean what you say.

Two of the key things that make it nearly impossible to have an honest, adult discussion with someone who is full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism is they constantly try to divert from ever achieving a meaningful exchange of information through ad hominem and straw man arguments.

Let’s compare what I said:

“You might be able to claim you’re not a hypocrite if you didn’t depend on fossil fuels and their many derivative products DAILY.”

and what YOU said:

“because you use fossil fuels you can’t argue against it”.

See how you disingenuously accused me of making YOUR ARGUMENT, which I never made?

You can argue against it all you wish – I never said you couldn’t. You’re deliberately misrepresenting, lying about, what I said. I simply pointed out THE FACT that when you are dependent on that which you claim we should rid ourselves of, and you have not rid yourself of it,you are a hypocrite. Kind of like an alcoholic telling me it’s time I stopped drinking (even though he doesn’t actually know I don’t drink anyway). You can do it, but you only make yourself look silly doing so. So stop lying – stop claiming I said you CAN’T argue something when you can argue whatever you want – but you’re making a hypocrite of yourself in the process, as noted.

Why is it there continues to be a strong streak of dishonesty in your posts? Why is your tactic to claim I made arguments that sprung from your mind, not mine? Why do you claim I think I have the right to tell you what arguments you can make? That’s a liberal tactic, not my tactic. They are the ones who try to villify anyone who makes a valid argument against them. “You must be on the payroll of those criminal fossil fuel producers!”. Scary thought, that.

I meant what I said. But that was a statement that is a simple truth, not the straw-man argument you presented. My ARGUMENT against those who are the primary advocates of cutting our throats by driving energy costs to ridiculous levels is that they all say WE need to cut down while they do exactly the opposite.

They demand OUR COUNTRY must pay dearly for fossil fuels and that money, THEY SAY, is to be ‘redistributed’ to the very countries where most of the CO2 emissions growth is going on.

Why is it that EVERY TREATY from Kyoto forward did not do A SINGLE THING to actually begin to curb CO2 emissions? Remember the part where we could continue to grow our emissions as long as we paid developing nations, where the bulk of the current CO2 emissions growth is occurring, for the right to do so? What sense did that make?

Did the Paris agreement put us on the road to reduced CO2?

No, it did not, although it was hailed as a huge success! Why?

I would like to see us move on to more exotic energy sources as well.

Unfortunately since before I was born they’ve been saying that fusion energy is about 50 years away, they’re saying that today and they probably will be saying that when I die. Hopefully a long time from now but you never know.

Anyway, I mentioned Hansen’s take on nuclear, for which even this champion, this poster child of the nonsense that is AGW alarmism was viciously attacked:

“I think that next-generation, safe nuclear power is an option which we need to develop. And it is being developed in many countries around the world. So if the United States declines to do that, we’re just going to suffer economically because other countries will take the lead in that technology.” – James Hansen

I’m still waiting for your take on that. Do you accept that if we are to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels we must dramatically increase nuclear and possibly hydroelectric as well? Or what? What do you propose we do to replace the lost “always available” generation capacity. California’s CO2 insanity has now led to rolling blackouts – liberals have managed to turn one of the biggest economies in the world into a basically third world type place where they can’t even reliably keep the power on!

This post of yours suggests that, now that we’re actually perhaps making an effort to communicate effectively, we may actually share some important common ideas and goals despite our looming disagreements in other areas.

We can ride our bikes and conserve energy where we can, but can’t escape the government subsidized industry, until we unite and realize that moving away from carbon based industry is wise on so many levels.

This seems to be a popular view among people who think and believe as you do. Let me break it down:

We can ride our bikes and conserve energy where we can

Yes, and when those screaming the loudest about our need to do this stop riding around in private jets and fleets of SUVs and start practicing what they preach – and I’m not saying they have to give up ALL fossil fuels, mind you, but they just show an actual effort to walk the walk their preaching demands of us – maybe we’ll make some progress in that respect. I’ll have you know my daily driver is a hybrid and I ride a bike instead of drive whenever possible. Just so you know I practice what I preach, I’m not a hypocrite like so many on the other side of these issues.

we…can’t escape the government subsidized industry

Sorry, but what we saw under Obama was not any effort to bring this industry to maturity but rather HUGE political payoffs – company after company that was started by those who helped him get elected – then re-elected – received huge funding from the government… then promptly went bankrupt. Often they ended up seriously negatively impacting the environment – I remember one company destroyed their entire inventory because it was cheaper than to store or ship it until it could be put to use – how much fossil fuel energy (used to manufacture and ship the inventory in the first place) did that waste, how much potentially harmful waste did that put into a landfill somewhere?

I hear you arguing FOR subsidies but I am sure you are AGAINST any subsidies to fossil fuel companies – let me know when you’re ready to choose whether subsidies are good or bad and we can talk. I’m for ending ALL subsidies – all technologies need to compete on a level playing field – this would be the best way to encourage those who are backing technologies that need to be improved before they can compete to actually make an effort to reach that goal.

Which is what YOU said:

At the very least remove the monetary incentives from all forms of energy and let them compete equally.

This is nice – we actually agree on something. I suspect there are more points we agree on. But then you go against what you just said with:

History says we should probably subsidize alternative sources and invest in R&D until the best solutions pan out.

I am ALL FOR some help with R&D – but not with ANY subsidies. Once the technology is proven on a small scale it won’t need any subsidies – the market will see the value of investing in it, they will do so – and the Democrats will come in and penalize those who risked their money, confiscating enough of the profits they had every right to expect in the name of “economic justice” that their expected returns will become losses, often significant ones, and those investors will, in the future, seek to invest their money in places out of reach of the U.S. government so it won’t happen again – see how that works?

cshorey
July 30, 2016 at 7:34 AM

So in the end you seem to agree. No subsidies for any and let them compete on a fair basis. But do take the economic externalities into the price point. Wouldn’t you agree there as well?

No, I would not, since this is just code for doing exactly the opposite of what we seem to agree on – let each compete on a completely level playing field with no advantage or disadvantage through any sort of subsidies or other interference. When solar is mature enough to compete without “taking the economic externalities into the price point” then it will. Until then it won’t. Meanwhile, R&D baby!

Primarily because the “economic externalities” that you mention are basically the LIE that CO2 is POLLUTION that must be paid for and the LIE that more CO2 will lead to catastrophe – some say already has, in fact. This phrase is liberal code for blaming CO2 and it’s producers for things that are not caused by it. Take the claim we would have more frequent and much worse hurricanes – and yet how long has it been since a single major (CAT III or greater) hurricane has struck the U.S.? The global ACE (accumulated cyclone energy) index took quite a tumble – if our CO2 is causing catastrophic warming of the surface, air or oceans, how do you explain that?

This term is as phony (at least in this context) as terms like “economic justice” and “black lives matter” are in their contexts.

CO2 is not pollution, it’s PLANT FOOD.

More CO2 is GOOD FOR THE BIOSPHERE. Warmer times are GOOD FOR THE HUMAN RACE AND THE BIOSPHERE. If anything these facts should be seen as an ECONOMIC PLUS and ENCOURAGE us to use MORE CO2 producing fossil fuels and LESS solar and wind power.

This is what those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism won’t admit and/or don’t get.

And yet there has been an observed POSITIVE impact on the biosphere that still is denied (who are the deniers?) by those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism – this impact has a high POSITIVE economic value:

Those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism typically state what is the opposite of reality: They claim that deserts are expanding and getting worse, but the observed FACT is that CO2 fertilization is increasing maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments. Even the deserts are greening.

Also you are no doubt familiar with the concept of “polar amplification – the apparently observed (if we can trust those doing the observing – and experience shows doing so can be foolish) trend of more rapid heating of the higher latitudes, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, which actually makes sense, than the lower ones. The effect here is to make more land habitable, arable.

What I find is that those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism do point out that when change, which is INEVITABLE, occurs it is rarely all good – there is also bad that comes with it.

When they clubbed seals in Canada to prevent decimation of fisheries they were also making it harder for polar bears to find food, one of the REAL factors (not CO2) that caused specific polar bear populations to decline and may still be impacting them as the seal populations continue to recover.

If a lion is to live it’s prey must die. This is the way of the world. And if a human is to live it must exhale CO2. As do all animals. One way or another (fish, of course, don’t usually “exhale”, but they do require oxygen and do expel CO2 as a result). And even plants must continue to live and power their life functions during periods of darkness. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere may in fact be a proxy for how well life is doing on Earth and when it rises that may be a sign that life is doing well. That may be the TRUE interpretation of the observed CO2 increase!

LTJ
October 11, 2017 at 8:57 AM

“Yes, and when those screaming the loudest about our need to do this stop riding around in private jets and fleets of SUVs and start practicing what they preach…”

The voices of folks like Leonardo Di Caprio are no louder than those of us who cycle to work in good weather – but they are amplified by the mass media. How would you suggest we neutralize that effect?

Bart_R
May 19, 2016 at 11:23 AM

There are some 11,000+ new peer reviewed scholarly works in climatology alone, and the Idsos scavenge material for their multiple disinformation sites from far more broadly than just climatology.

Further, it is a commonplace trick of the Idsos to cite a paper, but present the opposite of the paper’s conclusions in their summary. This secondhand interpretation is just more reason to avoid secondary interpretors.

What other plausible reason could there be for going to propagandists for support, than that one wants one’s propaganda predigested so its easier to swallow hook, line and sinker?

“cshorey” apparently gets all his talking points from the usual leftist sites that are full of lies, talking points and propaganda just like “CB” does.

He keeps referring to Santer et. al. 2009 but cannot provide the title of the paper or a proper link to it, suggesting to me at least he has not seen or read the paper and does not know what it is about or what it actually says.

I think I know which of the several papers Santer co-authored (well, was included as a co-author, it’s likely he didn’t actually write much for any of them the way this works these days) he’s trying to refer to but I’m letting him twist in the wind and prove he doesn’t.

I’ve challenged him to provide the actual title or a valid link instead of a nebulous reference, the type of reference found on his typical choice of websites, which present distorted views of what is actually written, just like he does, which explains why they don’t want people who actually bother to read the stuff to be able to find what they claim are their sources.

cshorey
July 26, 2016 at 11:28 PM

I don’t really go to “leftist sites”. That would be a waste of my time. I do come here though because of all the fascinating pretzel logic I find. Marc Marono is a truly dishonest and corrupt individual, and I’m interested in what he spawns into my world. I keep an eye on the climate deniers, because I have an active knowledge and interest in climate science, and I’m a father. What was that about ad hominem? Stop guessing about me and pigeonholing me and try taking to me.

Well funny, what little information you have provided is basically word for word straight from the usual leftist sites that are known only for providing lies, talking points and propaganda for those who have no idea what they’re talking about.

As for your claim that

Marc Marono is a truly dishonest and corrupt individual”

Where to begin – either you don’t know how to spell his name properly – which indicates a lack of attention to detail that argues against any chance you’ve actually obtained a Ph.D. in ANY field, or you are once again engaging in childish ad hominem, which also tends to argue against you having the education you claim.

Furthermore the fact you made generic, unsupported complaints against him suggests you have no valid argument against anything he’s said, ever.

As far as pigeonholing you, is that what you call it when I point out you’ve claimed you have a degree in one field when in fact (assuming you are the actual Christian Shorey I found on line) you list your degree as being in quite another field – and pointing that out isn’t pigeonholing you, it’s simply recognizing a fundamental dishonest streak in you that you’ve demonstrated in other ways, perhaps even to the point of claiming to be “cshorey” when you are not really him.

I’m not “guessing” about you – I’m showing that what you claim here is not representative of the facts – and I’m finding that to be the case over and over.

You use the tired and false phrase “climate deniers” – exactly what is it you claim anyone who you use that phrase against is denying?

If you want me to “talk to you” I would be glad to – but if you continue to call me juvenile names, use terms like “denier” and simply disparage me and those who demand proof – not from models but from real world observations – and I’m not talking about the PROVEN fraudulent kind that have come from the U.K. Met Office (Jones), from Hansen over at NASA/GISS and from people like Karl (and whoever else was involved in falsifying THEIR data) at NOAA. Show me data that hasn’t been repeatedly and consistently manipulated to induce fraudulent (and indeed anthropogenic, in a sense) warming that only exists AFTER the data has been repeatedly adjusted to create it.

And show me science that existed BEFORE it became a prerequisite to success in climate disciplines to be willing to compromise the scientific method and your own personal honesty and integrity in order to avoid being constantly attacked, threatened and black listed.

cshorey
August 13, 2016 at 3:07 PM

Fourier, Tyndall, Langley, Arrhenius, Calendar, Suess, Ravelle, Keeling, Plass . . . seems I can think of a lot of scientists, who did lots of science you can now go educate yourself in, before “it became a prerequisite to success in climate disciplines to be willing to compromise scientific method . . . “. Oh wait, that permise is BS. No scientist gets fame and fortune by saying “I agree with everyone else”. As for your “proven” fraudulent claims, you must mean the quote ripped assumption of fraud that were found to not be true by 7 international commissions. You’re living in a fantasy land, and my making a typo on Mark, the truly dishonest, Morano, proves nothing but the fantasy in your head. We are quickly getting to a point where this discussion is scientifically beyond you and thus not worth pursuing further. Can you get back to the science or not?

Tell you what – you stop giving me nonsense like the above (appeals to authority, etc.) to respond to and I will spend what little time I have on these issues talking about the science.

a lot of scientists

Oddly enough, the predictions based on their “science” – one that comes to mind being that we would see complete melting of the Arctic sea ice during summer by now – have mostly failed to come true. Real science makes predictions that come true. Ideologically driven science tends to make predictions that fail. Global warming alarmism predictions fairly consistently fail.

No scientist gets fame and fortune by saying “I agree with everyone else”.

Al Gore got a Nobel (but it wasn’t a SCIENCE prize) Prize for agreeing… but they give that one to terrorists as well so…

This is posed as the biggest issue of our time – and yet not one Nobel (science) Prize has been given out to anyone of the big names in this endeavor.

Actually a lot of people are getting a lot of press on this issue – a lot of fame, huge grants, not for saying “I agree with everyone else” but rather for constantly saying “WE’RE DOOMED”. I just wish they would join the Heaven’s Gate folks with that nonsense.

And those who DO NOT agree get punished, their works get shot down (so that the truth in them, which competes with AGW nonsense, won’t come out) and they even get fired. Oh, and they get hauled into court, threatened with lawsuits and such, as we see going on right now.

you must mean the quote ripped assumption of fraud that were found to not be true by 7 international commissions.

Not sure what you’re talking about here. If it’s the various whitewashes done to save the reputations of certain institutions who had on their staffs people like Mann who’s works were PROVEN beyond ANY DOUBT to be a joke, or Jones, who fraudulently “adjusted” temperature records when they didn’t show enough warming… No number of whitewash commissions will change the fact that these things happened. Naturally they ‘did the right thing’ to save the individuals and organizations involved, ignoring their despicable actions for the greater good of AGW and the institutions involved, which stood to lose not only respect but, more important, millions or even billions in research grants.

Mark, the truly dishonest, Morano

You know, you keep impugning the guy but haven’t given a single valid example of anything he said that was deliberately dishonest – and I’ve caught you in at least 2 clear cut examples of dishonesty, so pot, stop calling the kettle black.

I did have a bit of fun when you said corrals – other than that I don’t recall giving you a hard time for any typos. I know, I probably shouldn’t have done that, but I was in a joking mood at the time – no excuse, just letting you know why I did it. I think everyone knows what you meant. And hopefully everyone knows I knew, too. Maybe go back there and make a comment if it means that much to you and I’ll say this there, too.

Sure, if you stop talking all this other nonsense then I will stop responding to it and will be able to dedicate more of my scarce extra time to actually responding concerning science – but let’s give that a test right now:

Both the IPCC and a group of noted “climate scientists” (and I use that term loosely, given how they tend to have a very loose definition of what is one when it comes to someone who supports AGW but a very strict one when it comes to someone who does not) have admitted, in no uncertain terms, that the rate of surface warming was GREATER when there was LESS CO2 and was LESSER when there was MORE CO2:

… the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

A quote from the above article, with one slight change, is extremely appropriate as a more direct response than the longer one I gave below:

If you learn anything, Chris Shorey, how about this: If you insist on insulting the intelligence of one entire side of a public policy debate in order to silence them, be prepared to hurt some very fine and credible people; including people you know, respect, and care about. That’s “insane.”

cshorey
July 29, 2016 at 6:51 PM

You really are opaque sometimes. Can you drift it back to climate at all?

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 2:47 PM

I can see your rabid belief. Why would I bother to read anything you recommend. In fact, what is a “PAGES” study?

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 3:44 PM

Try Googling “paleoclimate PAGES”. This isn’t hard.

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 4:27 PM

In your own words. If you’re not capable to describing it, you don’t understand.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 7:00 PM

Really, after I already described this to you as a comprehensive overview of paleoclimate data. So is this admission that Googling “paleoclimate PAGES” is too hard for you?

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 9:59 PM

I repeat… don’t waste readers time by attempting to chase them around the web. My goodness, such a rabid believer and yet you can’t put into your own words an argument for why you’re such an avid believer. Surely you have some empirical evidence, or something you can speak to?

Your cited source, the PAGES project, specifically states on it’s home page that it’s mission is to go back and revise established knowledge and to fraudulently change it to match what flawed climate models tell us we SHOULD believe, rather than what we actually observe.

I read it word for word. Once again you prove you’re nothing but a DENIER. And a liar, too. From their home page (URL YOU GAVE after I already went there, so you can’t deny that I’ve got the right page.)

QUOTE:

PAGES is pleased to announce the launch of two new working groups.

DAPS – Paleoclimate Reanalyses

As usual, the result of the “reanalyses” will be revision of the data so that it more closely matches models, rather than the proper revision of the models so they more closely match the observed data.

We saw this with KARL 2015 – which was an attempt to claim the IPCC didn’t know what it was talking about here:

… the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

That logic is so bad, where to begin. A paleoclimate synthesis is not at all what you are describing so you obviously can’t do this unless someone holds your hand, wipes your ass, and plants a link in your lazy lap: http://www.pages-igbp.org
And if you quote from their main site, try to be somewhere near reality, and don’t paraphrase in your paranoid delusional fantasies.

Why am I NOT surprised you left out any mention of the Late Ordovician Period – an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today?

(Here’s where you trot out some “revision” of all the previous science, a revision that denies it all and that says otherwise.)

So you claim that showing that there have been past events where temperatures rose dramatically that could not have been caused by humans (the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum) proves that the only time temperatures could possibly rise like they are now is because humans are causing it?

Come again?

Then you double down by referring to a period where, despite initially high CO2 levels, an ice age eventually began!

It’s interesting you would pick the time (Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time – 315 mya — 270 mya) that is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today.

And you ignore the FACT that, when CO2 was high during the Carboniferous period, contrary to the claims of you and your ilk, the world was a place full of life, much more alive than it is today in fact.

Your examples suggest we should do all we can to return to a period of higher atmospheric CO2 levels.

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm — about 18 times higher than today. And even with CO2 nearly 5 and about 18 times higher, life managed to struggle on despite the claims of those who are full of
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism that we’re doomed already and it’s already too late, all we can hope to do is limit the damage with CO2 still very close to record LOW levels.

Already dealt with your two exceptions to the general rule – which only prove that there are many things that influence changes in temperature and CO2 and they don’t always move together, as the record clearly shows. Nice cherry picking, though.

cshorey
August 3, 2016 at 5:28 PM

If you call the Pleistocene “the general rule”. Did you have some other good examples besides the last ~2My of glacial interglacial cycles? How about the slide down to it, probably triggered (a la Maureen Raymo) by the uplift of the Himalayan plateau. So much silicate mineral being weathered means increased hydrolysis which removes CO2 from the atmosphere and the planet begins to dive down in temperature in response. That mechanism is over 30 My vs your 2 My “general rule”. Talk about the cherry picking.

You seem to be calling it that. I merely pointed out that there were AT LEAST 16 times where temperature clearly rose first, followed by atmospheric CO2. I hadn’t gotten to the opposite – when things started dropping. I’ve also explained the obvious reason we would see this, based on well established physics you seem determined to ignore.

There are a number of things that interact – I’m not saying that coincidence proves causation, I leave that to those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism and they’re all too eager to oblige.

You do understand, apparently, the role played by significant geologic (tectonic) changes. All of the other changes that play a role can tend to make it hard to see the effect of a single piece of the puzzle, that much I hope we can agree. But there is no doubt that an increase in the temperature of the oceans tends to make CO2 less soluble – is there? Do you suggest that’s not the case? Do you believe that the atmosphere is a greater reservoir of CO2 or are the oceans the greater reservoir? Likewise, as the temperature does “dive down”, the oceans would be able to hold more CO2 in solution. This is not rocket science, it’s Henry’s Law.

cshorey
August 8, 2016 at 11:17 AM

Just went back through the thread to confirm you didn’t mention “16 times” before, nor have you elucidated them more here. I am still going to have to assume you are speaking of the Milankovitch cycle driven glacial/interglacial cycles of the Pleistocene which started at a 41 Ky cycle until about 1.5 My when it switched to 100 Ky. There are about 16 or so total swings in there, which have a solar driven T increase first followed by greenhouse gas feedbacks. Your vagueness in paleoclimatology makes me have to assume you are stuck in the Pleistocene for your “general rule”. As for the solubility of CO2, you are absolutely right, though you miss that hotter worlds are wetter worlds which lead to more wetlands that emit more CH4, that converts to CO2 in the atmosphere. You also get the thawing of permafrost kicking both those gasses out as well. So your discussion on this matter, though true, is incomplete, and then misses the crucial point that CO2 can be both a climate driver AND a feedback in the climate system. You just got the second half and seem to think the former is just through correlation being assumed as causation. No, it’s evidential through the work of Tyndall and Langley in the 1800’s and the U.S. Air Force working on heat seeking missile technology in the 1950’s. We know CO2 allows transmission of visible light and absorbs in the thermal IR in a way that is not redundant with H2O, and can thus retain thermal IR in the lower atmosphere. Thus CO2 can be a climate driver as well. After all, if you’re “general rule” is true, then we are currently living in a non-analog situation by default. We have observed a rise in CO2 first followed by the T increase over the last 150 years. And there is no such thing as rocket science. There’s physics and engineering. But that’s another discussion.

cshorey
August 13, 2016 at 3:11 PM

Explain why a Milankovitch driven warming, which should operate as a see saw pole to pole or pole to equator according to Milankovitch, instead has a uniform global signature of warming and cooling? You point out the solubility of CO2 with regard to sea temperature. You should be able to piece it together now that such a feedback would exactly give you a global signal even from a mere shift in solar energy without significant increase nor decrease in incoming radiation globally. Huh, CO2 has T control even in the cases where you think it is merely following passively with little affect. Do you see that you only discuss portions of this science and leave out huge portions of the system to come the conclusions you reach? You need to do a lot more studying before you can debate this competently.

Thank you for explaining why we are currently seeing a see-saw pole to pole effect – as at the south pole we see an accumulation of ice and snow and record after record set for MAXIMUM EXTENT of sea ice (with a few years where they don’t set new records in between) even as we see the northern ice dwindling.

Odd, though, that those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism concentrate on just the melting that is happening at the north pole for the most part and don’t mention what’s happening at the south – more ice and snow than before – and when they do bother to mention it they note that it’s on the decaying side of the curve.

“It’s not expected,” says Professor John Turner, a climate expert at the British Antarctic Survey. “The world’s best 50 models were run and 95% of them have Antarctic sea ice decreasing over the past 30 years.”

The winter ice around the southern continent has been growing relatively constantly since records began in 1979. The US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC), which monitors sea ice using satellite data, said this week that the year’s maximum was 1.54m sq km (595,000 sq miles) above the 1981-2010 average. The past three winters have all produced record levels of ice.

cshorey
August 14, 2016 at 4:28 PM

I have not even started to explain the difference between the poles currently, and the fact you think a discussion on Milankovitch forcing would be the explanation is yet another example of the lack of knowledge you have which makes it near impossible for you to discuss this intelligently. Guy Calendar predicted in 1938 that greenhouse gas forcing would cause the interior of Antarctica to gain ice, and eventually the edges would start melting first. The edge melt was first measured in 2008. Now figure this one out. What freezes more easily, salt water or fresh water? Which is less dense and would stay at the surface? If you understand this system, you will see that increased melting of the edges of Antarctica leads to more sea ice forming around Antarctica. We climate scientists do not ignore this, and even see changes in Atlantic winds that help Antarctic sea ice get even bigger. Those changes in wind are climate change related. So once again you brought up a subject (for the wrong reasons showing a lack of knowledge there) and couldn’t manage a full discussion, only a cherry picked portion that tells your science denial story. We are quickly approaching an end to our discussion as you have shown no ability to learn.

You’re so desperate to turn this into something that’s all about me and how ignorant I am. Do you really have such a low opinion of yourself that you need to constantly crow about how much smarter than me you are?

First, YOU brought up Milankovitch forcing.

Second, it is widely agreed that Milakovitch forcing is one of several things that causes climate change – or are you and your ilk getting ready to deny that, too?

Did Guy Calendar also predict that the Antarctic would set multiple year over year maximum sea ice records?

Yes, I understand how you and your ilk are desperate to explain away the fact that snow and ice are accumulating in the south – but why isn’t all that melting ice and snow doing the same thing around Greenland and in the Arctic Ocean? You’re missing something really important here.

And since you brought up changes in wind… it is also understood that part of what is going on at the North Pole has to do with… CHANGES IN WIND! Or didn’t you know that?

It seems you only know, or at least you only admit to knowing, those things which reinforce your failed ideas.

I don’t think you even understand my position – you keep saying I’m saying things I never did. I agree this isn’t really going anywhere productive – at least not as long as you’re telling me what I think, all the while only proving who wrong you are about that, too!

cshorey
August 16, 2016 at 3:36 PM

Oh dear Avidyasattva,
Perhaps it would help you to know that I don’t want to constantly correct you and show where you’ve gone wrong. I’d much rather see you understand the science, complicated though it is, at a rudimentary level at least. I had hope for you in the beginning because you seemed able to find sources and at least try to read them, which better than most CFACT adherents.
First, I brought up Milankovitch forcing, so of course I don’t deny it. I just used it to explain that even with a see-saw forcer, we get a uniform global signal of climate change. We have to invoke greenhouse gas feedbacks to do that. That will be the second time I’ve explained that to you (you clearly missed the point above).
Second, why would I deny Milankovitch forcing? Unlike you, I am willing to consider the full effect of each of the major forcing agents INCLUDING human induced greenhouse gas forcing. It is you that have denied the importance of one of the major forcers (against the conclusions of scientific experts).
Third, Guy Calendar did not postulate on sea ice, only land based glacial ice. I note you don’t deny that he made the prediction, good, and you don’t deny that a warming world will make Antarctic ice grow, also good. Keep that up and you’ll be getting the idea. Warmer air can hold more water and precipitate more moisture so if you go from way below freezing to less below freezing, it snows more. That’s basic meteorology and the reason for the saying “too cold to snow”.
Fourth, you seem to want to make the north and south poles equivalent when they clearly aren’t. You ask why in the south when not in the north. Well . . . the north is an ocean surrounded by land, the south is land surrounded by ocean. This leads to varied complex ocean and atmospheric dynamics in the north which vary greatly seasonally. The south has circumpolar vortices in both the atmosphere and ocean that block heat flow to the south pole year round. The north can have greater changes in sea ice area both seasonally and climatically, and thus a greater positive climate feedback. Will you deny any of this? Will you admit that it was not I that was “missing something really important here” as it was I that had to explain all of this to you? Your question itself assumed an inappropriate likeness that demonstrates lack of knowledge yet again.
I most certainly do not try to put words in your mouth, unless I am having to guess at your meaning as you don’t explain yourself well enough. You still have not told us any details on the 16 times T preceded CO2 despite having been asked for the details multiple times. If you don’t like being misunderstood, try being clearer with better details.

You may notice I’ve had better things to do than respond to your posts lately and I’ll explain some of the reasons why:

Oh dear Avidyasattva,

Still acting like a kindergarten bully, thinking that by calling me names you will upset me, or perhaps that’s how you deal with your own ego issues – I really don’t know, or care.

Perhaps it would help you to know that I don’t want to constantly correct you and show where you’ve gone wrong. I’d much rather see you understand the science, complicated though it is, at a rudimentary level at least.

The problem is you both don’t have any clue what I DO understand and have failed, repeatedly, to pick up any clues from what I’ve posted.

I had hope for you in the beginning because you seemed able to find sources and at least try to read them, which is better than most CFACT adherents.

I am not a “CFACT adherent”. I don’t generally come or linger here. How I got here is another story, it involved a bit of randomness which is not relevant to any discussion we’re having.

First, I brought up Milankovitch forcing, so of course I don’t deny it. I just used it to explain that even with a see-saw forcer, we get a uniform global signal of climate change.

It seems, then, that you understand that the global signal is to some extent caused by FEEDBACKS due to EXTERNAL FORCINGS. Good, we’re finally getting somewhere.

We have to invoke greenhouse gas feedbacks to do that. That will be the second time I’ve explained that to you (you clearly missed the point above).

So you acknowledge, unlike most of those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, that the FORCING is EXTERNAL and the woefully misnamed “greenhouse” effect is a FEEDBACK.

Now I’m going to point out right here that you DO NOT seem to understand that I’ve consistently accepted this FEEDBACK, though I bristle at calling it a “greenhouse” because it’s physical processes are not the same as a greenhouse in any way and this is in fact how many are duped to believing something is happening when actual observations have PROVEN beyond ANY DOUBT it is not – though it has become common to call it that so other than point this out occasionally I don’t want to get bogged down in arguing over it.

Second, why would I deny Milankovitch forcing? Unlike you, I am willing to consider the full effect of each of the major forcing agents INCLUDING human induced greenhouse gas forcing.

Well I wish you would be consistent, because there you go again. In a previous phrase you admitted that “greenhouse” gasses were a feedback, now you’re trying to claim they’re a forcing. Please explain to me how CO2 produces heat. This should be interesting.

It is you that have denied the importance of one of the major forcers (against the conclusions of scientific experts).

There you go with another appeal to authority. These “experts” have been caught engaging in very unscientific activities, including falsifying data. I don’t care how many people who stood to lose respect and grant money whitewashed and proclaimed otherwise, the facts remain that there is a lot of ideology and precious little science that supports the RIDICULOUS idea that humans have usurped the vastly more powerful forces of nature that actually determine our weather, temperature and climate and are now a dominant factor there.

Third, Guy Calendar did not postulate on Antarctic sea ice, only land based glacial ice. I note you don’t deny that he made the prediction, good, and you don’t deny that a warming world will make Antarctic ice grow, also good.

You seem to be stuck on this “denial/denier” kick. I suggest you open your eyes to the fact that those who deny nature is still more powerful than man are the true deniers, not those who say we should value actual observations over computer model results which are known to be fatally flawed anyway. Not that I don’t value proper models – models play a large and important role in many aspects of science today.

Keep that up and you’ll be getting the idea. Warmer air can hold more water and precipitate more moisture so if you go from way below freezing to less below freezing, it snows more. That’s basic meteorology and the reason for the saying “too cold to snow”.

You’re preaching to the choir, but I do appreciate you acknowledging that I’ve got some things right instead of constantly acting as if I’m clueless, acting like you’re teaching me things I’ve already stated to you previously. While I admit I grew up where it rarely snowed (once every 10 years, essentially) I’ve been through blizzards in Denver and Philadelphia (and other places) and I do know the saying “too cold to snow”.

Fourth, you seem to want to make the north and south poles equivalent when they clearly aren’t. You ask why in the south when not in the north. Well . . . the north is an ocean surrounded by land, the south is land surrounded by ocean. This leads to varied complex ocean and atmospheric dynamics in the north which vary greatly seasonally. The south has circumpolar vortices in both the atmosphere and ocean that block heat flow to the south pole year round. The north can have greater changes in sea ice area both seasonally and climatically, and thus a greater positive climate feedback. Will you deny any of this? Will you admit that it was not I that was “missing something really important here” as it was I that had to explain all of this to you? Your question itself assumed an inappropriate likeness that demonstrates lack of knowledge yet again.

Back to the straw man arguments. My question was essentially a device and it worked. Let me highlight the key part of your answer, which I do appreciate, but which I already knew.

Here is the key part:

The north can have greater changes in sea ice area both seasonally and climatically, and thus a greater positive climate feedback.

Indeed, and while we know this is due to GEOGRAPHY, those of us who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism insist it is due to human influence. You seem to admit that there is nothing odd or unusual about rapid ice loss or ice gain at the north pole, both of which we’ve observed in the last several years.

I most certainly do not try to put words in your mouth,

And yet you keep doing it and keep responding as if I haven’t said things that I have said.

And I would like to get to more important things, like more discussion of the “TOA” imbalance or the many times temperature preceded (and essentially “forced”) atmospheric CO2 levels, but I tend to work these comments in LIFO fashion and all the recent ones you’re making are about other things.

But let’s cut to the chase on that. Right now, not in the past, because right now is what is most relevant – do you agree that a warming ocean would tend to release some of the CO2 dissolved in it, or do you claim that temperature does not have any such effect on the solubility of CO2 in the ocean?

This is a busy time for me. I have not forgotten you, but I have priorities – most important, other people who are willing to make progress without constantly engaging in petty nonsense such as “Avidyasattva”.

Seriously. What’s up with that?

cshorey
August 14, 2016 at 4:29 PM

And I can’t help but notice that you still haven’t managed to explain your “general rule”, and so I am left to conclude you don’t know what you’re talking about again.

It’s logic like that which makes one question whether you actually earned a PhD at all…

I am not going to be baited into your circular arguments.

If you weren’t spewing so much nonsense like this I might have time to put together a carefully thought out response, but instead I’m busy pointing out how petulant and illogical your posts are.

cshorey
August 16, 2016 at 2:01 AM

Oh dear, now you’ve made several posts in a row that have nothing to do with climate science. You have reduced yourself to this verbal diarrhea in which the absence of an explanation of your “general rule” continues to prove you didn’t really know what you were talking about. Would you like to try and prove that assumption wrong by actually making a post of substance. Here is the substance for this post; one needs a minimum of 17 years of record to see a climate signal, so thanks for pointing out satellite data of cooling over the last two months as if you were discussing climate, when you were really discussing weather. That is a datum in many I’ve seen leading me to conclude you don’t understand this, and are incapable of learning past your science denier colored glasses. And now you’ve made yourself a PhD denier too. What’s the matter, can’t even trust the conclusions of your own attempted which hunt?

Not sure how you claim that my admitting to exceptions to the general rules is “cherry picking” – I’m not denying or hiding that things don’t always happen the same way. Just pointing out that you using two examples to try to claim CO2 is the dominant factor ignores that there are 16 examples when that was not the case.

You seem stuck on claiming coincidence proves causation even when a much larger number of cases show it happened the other way – and then all of a sudden you seem to abandon the idea coincidence means causation.

Mind you, I would not doubt you think I’m saying that temperature rises will always be followed by CO2 rises and I’m not. I’m simply saying it happened that way a number of times and I’m still not claiming it always does, will or should.

cshorey
August 8, 2016 at 11:25 AM

Admitting the two “exceptions” in itself is cherry picking if you think about hydrolysis as the mechanism resolving the “faint young sun paradox”. That is a mechanism using CO2 to regulate T on the planet over billions of years. And you’re apparently hung up on the Pleistocene glacial/interglacial shifts to base your “general rule” to which CO2 as a driver is counted as an “exception to the rule”. I completely understand that you don’t comprehend that CO2 does drive T in a causal manner and thus CO2 can be both a driver and a feedback mechanism in the climate system. So now I’ve given you PETM, post-Carboniferous Ice House, Cenozoic cooling through Himalayan enhanced chemical weathering of silicates, and the long term regulation of planetary temperature through hydrolysis. Do you still call all this exceptions and merely a correlation of coinicidence? You won’t if you come to understand them.

The quote I provided was a direct quote, though I will have to look and make sure I turned off the BOLD soon enough – I may not have. Here it is again.

PAGES is pleased to announce the launch of two new working groups.

DAPS – Paleoclimate Reanalyses

As with other examples (the desperate attempts to eliminate or belittle the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, the KARL 2015 paper, the continual fraudulent re-adjustment of surface temperature data, the actual destruction of source data and careful elimination of any evidence or record of his efforts by Jones) what we see is people who are not necessarily part of a closely coordinated conspiracy, but who are all anti-science since they are adjusting the data to fit their desired conclusions.

That’s not how science works.

cshorey
July 26, 2016 at 4:13 PM

You found DAPS, but your overview is nothing like what their goals are. They started out by combining all forms of paleoclimate data. The fact the MWP comes out as regional only confirms other studies. The fact you want to cling to MWP as something comparable to today is the really telling point. It says you’ve already guzzled the cool aid and are unable to see why your comments keep revealing your ignorance. Again, try direct quotes instead of paraphrasing with your added paranoid delusions.

I’m not going to continue to watch you keep digging yourself in deeper. Yes, I found the exact quote where they admit their mission is to revise reality to match the models, revise truth to match what they wish it was instead of what it is.

Now go on to other topics and for God’s sake stop proving you have no valid arguments by slipping ad hominem into every post!

It’s amusing how you both admit to yet try to deny the MWP in this post. It appears you admit there was SOME warming but try to belittle it by only admitting to the validity of whatever proxies you’ve cherry picked that show (according to you, but as your own paper shows, there seems to be a lot of wishful thinking there) it was only regional, or maybe not all that dramatic, or whatever it is you choose to believe because it matches your world view.

Even your statements about times that (according to you) there were significant temperature excursions that (again, according to you) followed significant CO2 excursions only proves (IF and ONLY IF we stipulate your views on these things are correct – which is not established but which I will stipulate for purpose of this single argument) that significant climate change HAS occurred in the past without humans causing it.

This conclusion blows yet another of the major claims of people who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism to bits. For it establishes that significant changes in CO2 and temperature HAVE in fact occurred without humans being the cause – and your crowd insists that isn’t possible, hasn’t happened.

By the way, you do have a series of slides that shows sea levels rising by as much as 5.5 meters. Do you really believe that is likely, or even possible, over any really significant period of time? Have you read the recent papers suggesting that Antarctica is actually GAINING ice and snow, and has been for some time? Do you need me to provide an actual valid reference/citation/link, something you remain unable to do? Unable to do… despite the fact you claim to have a PhD and yet you are unable to provide a proper citation?

In fact I don’t know what attempt to present a “climate synthesis” you’re talking about as I haven’t been able to get you to admit what your page is all about in the first place – basically it is clearly, once again, an attempt to get everyone singing from the same fraudulent piece of music as alluded to with THIS EXACT QUOTE FROM THE LINK YOU GAVE:

The PAGES (Past Global Changes) project is an international effort to coordinate and promote past global change research.

The key word is “coordinate” – mustn’t have anyone straying from the dogmatic view. They tried that approach when, for a time at least, they managed to pervert the peer-review system and prevent any papers that questioned their dogmatic beliefs form being accepted using a variety of dirty tricks, then gloated about their success among themselves, thinking it would never be made public in violation of existing laws.

Now go ahead, deny, deny, deny.

p.s. – I am also continuing to see exactly what, if anything, of any real value is available at the link you gave as time permits. I will cautiously, with the expectation I will find something, thank you for the link.

But I’m still waiting for a proper citation concerning the TOA energy imbalance paper that Santer seems to have failed to include in his C.V.

cshorey
August 3, 2016 at 5:05 PM

I’ll assume you’ll agree I messed up naming Santer on that paper, and that I’ve already given you the proper link. “Coordinate . . . research” in the sane world means taking teams in disparate areas, (e.g. tree ring archive specialists vs. ice cores, speleothems, corals, lake varves, sediment cores, glacial records, desert varnish, pack rat middens, . . . making the point about a diverse field that can be brought together . . . coordinated). So “coordinating” the research is not at all the same as dictating results. No scientist gets famous by saying “I agree with everyone else . . . despite my data!” That’s a laughable worldview. I will deny deny deny your crazy worldview. Thanks for that option.

Well yes, “the logic is so bad”… that the PAGES study group had to keep going back as their paper underwent multiple revisions, major corrections then essentially the group was forced to publish a significant retraction of their former claims that pretty much refuted their most important claim about the non-existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age – the part about the recent 30 year warming being “unprecedented” and their admission there were precedents, at least two:

The original paper, including the list of various corrections published over the years:

What Mr. Frog says, “the group was forced to publish a significant retraction of their former claims that pretty much refuted their most important claim about the non-existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age”.
And yet, when we actually read the original paper we find, “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between AD 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century.” And when we read the corrections paper we find, “No major conclusions have been affected by the corrections made to the Arctic data set including the conclusion that, during the period AD 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature among regions was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.” Now go back and see how Mr. Frog interpreted this again. In his world “No major conclusions have been affected” turned into “significant retraction of their former claims”. I’ve admitted when I was wrong and made correction. Seems you have to admit you took the exact opposite from these papers as what they really say. But congratulations in getting that far. I gave PAGES to Dennis to show that cherry picking data sets is insufficient and biased. He wanted to focus on boreholes a la Joanne Nova only. He could never find the PAGES studies, so you’re one up on him, for what that’s worth.

cshorey
July 26, 2016 at 11:30 PM

Says the guy who’s comments are private and who has yet to give peep on what credentials he has to discuss this matter.

I don’t claim to have ANY credentials – that’s why I present the SCIENCE from the IPCC and others – which, I note, you have yet to address other than the usual personal attacks against me and, for that matter, sites you think I referenced which I did not.

My profile is private primarily because I’ve been threatened and stalked by people who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism who openly call for violence and even murder to keep the truth from being told. You can always find me at various places – including the one listed on my profile. Keeping my profile private keeps the lunatic leftists from being able to follow me around and call me juvenile names like “Mr. Frog”, wasting my time and theirs by only showing how juvenile they are and how vacuous they know their arguments are.

cshorey
July 29, 2016 at 6:53 PM

Nope, I haven’t had time to address your Gish gallop of earlier. It has so much to correct. But we got stuck on evidence point #1 I gave you. Credit where credit due, I mistook my reference, and had to go back to original notes. Now that I found you the reference it is you who have not addressed it. So I see the ball in your court. Would you like now to admit that there is scientific literature pointing to an energy imbalance at the top of our atmosphere?

cshorey
July 26, 2016 at 11:32 PM

Or I’m waiting to see if you guys are just trolls who ask me to do the simple legwork for you. I give enough for you guys to eventually find it, as you have shown, but then you turn around and accuse of not providing the info. Mr. Frog, tsk.

You have not provided anything but a dubious and completely insufficient reference to a report that might not even exist and have stubbornly refused to provide a proper citation or link. I see you’ve bombed my one comment here with 3 replies. Each mostly ad hominem and juvenile name calling. Rest assured that when I have time I will review each of your comments and so far your comments don’t really deserve a reply because, as noted, they’re more of the same juvenile ad hominem. If you think calling me “Mr. Frog” does anything more than calls into question you’re who you say you are or your alleged Ph.D, which is already proven to be in a different field than you claimed, is about as worthless as the mail-order paper it’s probably printed on, you’re sadly mistaken.

Think I may have already answered this but, if not, thanks for proving you have nothing valid to put in a response. Why not address the things stated on the page that YOUR SUGGESTION returned as the top result when I searched on the term YOU PROVIDED!

Review figure 7.1 on page 250 of the pdf file linked above, marked as page 202 on the actual page.

Right there where the IPCC admitted to the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age until they became “inconvenient truths” and had to be eliminated – fraudulently revised away into obscurity and non-existence.

And the Holocene Maximum – also referred to as “optimum” even though it was warmer than today AND, surprise, NO fossil fuels or SUVs to cause it! And what was the CO2 level then?

A person who decided at the end of their Geology BS to go into paleoclimatology, who then got a Ph.D. in paleoclimatology, and decided to become a science educator instead of a science researcher

Seems your PhD is in Geoscience – not paleoclimatology.

You going to deny this – or admit it?

Can’t help but catch you in lies with every post I fact-check.

As for your admission that you became an educator instead of actually putting your knowledge to the test by trying to get a job in the real world, there’s a saying I once heard that you just proved true:

Those who can, do.

Those who can’t do TEACH.

Perhaps this explains how the U.S. is in a state of decline. Many of those who teach are the people who’s education and beliefs are so flawed they can’t get REAL jobs, so they teach.

Like you.

cshorey
July 26, 2016 at 3:52 PM

Seems I did a PhD on climate proxies of carbon and oxygen isotopes in a speleothem archive, which is what we call paleoclimate. Nice try again, and you seem awfully fascinated by my background for one who thinks they see nothing but ad hominem attacks at every turn. When a person says the PETM shows that your CO2 second proposition is shit, this is not at hominem. When you continue with such nonsense after being corrected, and I say you are not competent to discuss this intelligently, that is just at observation of your ability in this area. Your ability is shit.

Seems I did a PhD on climate proxies of carbon and oxygen isotopes in a speleothem archive, which is what we call paleoclimate.

No, you list your PhD as follows:

University of Iowa, Ph.D. Geoscience 2002

Now if your degree was a Ph.D in Paleoclimate, why do you list it as a Ph.D in Geoscience? Are you lying on your official webpage there at the university or are you lying now?

I suspect you are lying now in order to try to bulk up your ‘authority’ in an attempt to engage in an appeal to authority.

I’m not “fascinated by your background”, I only looked you up once you made questionable claims about the degree you earned and, upon finding you list it as something completely different than what you claim it is here, sought further information as to why you would deliberately and continuously misrepresent the actual degree you earned, particularly after your disingenuous claims were revealed upon finding your faculty page at your place of employment.

Doing a couple research projects on speleothems does not make you an expert paleoclimatologist, though you might argue you know more than the average person about speleothems. For instance I doubt that the point you make in your research paper – that speleotherm characteristics are dependent on more than one factor, not just temperature – is something that the average person walking down the street would have heard. But given your displayed penchant for both concealing and outright falsifying information, just how much validity do you expect us to assign to your paper?

When a person says the PETM shows that your CO2 second proposition is shit, this is not at hominem.

I didn’t say it was.

You’re cherry picking two past periods and ignoring the rest because, of the 20 we’ve mentioned, only those two support your position and the others support mine. So the ratio is 1:9 in my favor – and you call my beliefs “shit”?

When you continue with such nonsense after being corrected, and I say you are not competent to discuss this intelligently, that is just at observation of your ability in this area.

It seems, as I mentioned before, you are unable to have a calm, logical discussion without becoming irrational and emotional, reverting to some level of behavior I last encountered somewhere between Kindergarten and the 2nd Grade.

Curse and belittle me all you want, claim doing so is not a personal attack if you think you’ll win any points with anyone by doing so. In your own research paper you point out that temperature is not the only thing that affects speleothem attributes.

Now about this “speleothem archive”, what that suggests is that you took data someone else gathered and stored and then re-evaluated it to reach your own conclusions. I only glanced at your paper but if I have time I will go back and take a look to determine, unless your paper does not reveal it, exactly how many data points in how many diverse areas of the globe you’ve reviewed and how your analysis compares with others who used similar (perhaps more comprehensive) data. I wonder what I might find once I get to that?

As for my ability being “SHIT”, I’m not the one claiming to have a Ph.D in paleoclimate when, in reality, I have a Ph.D in Geoscience! I’m actually pretty good at both the things I studied formally and those I studied informally, at least I can hold my own, except when those I’m talking to regress to pre-pubescent antics, at which time I generally have to take a break because I’m laughing too hard to think.

cshorey
August 8, 2016 at 2:55 PM

If I said I did my PhD in natural sciences, not social sciences, that would be true. If I said I did my PhD in geosciences, that would also be true. If I said I did my PhD in karst formations and processes, that also would be true. And if I say I did my PhD in paleoclimate reconstructions using speleothems, that too is true. But nice try.

You have, I presume, a document which states what your degree actually is. Online you have a published page which states what your degree actually is, I presume, but at this point can I even be sure of that? And here in a less formal setting you claim your degree is something completely different and double down trying to justify claiming something that differs with what you claimed elsewhere and likely differs from what is officially documented. I really don’t care to have you continue to be disingenuous about this. Why not just drop it – there’s nothing to be gained by you continuing to justify your demonstrated deliberate deceptiveness and I don’t want to be involved in encouraging you to continue to say something that, according to what you’ve said elsewhere, simply is not true even though you continue to try to justify this behavior.

cshorey
August 9, 2016 at 2:23 PM

I have a thesis title for my PhD which is Modeling High Temporal Resolution Climatic Records Preserved in Speleothem Records. Seems like that says “Paleoclimate” pretty clearly. So if a document says PhD from the Dept of Geology, that in no way contradicts that my PhD was in paleoclimatology. But nice try again. If only you could twist definitions and boxes to your whim to make them say the opposite of what they are. I got my PhD in paleoclimotolgy, like it or not.

Apparently having a PhD does not improve one’s lack of reading comprehension, cognitive reasoning skills or honesty – who knew?

cshorey
August 9, 2016 at 2:33 PM

That wasn’t very witty. Especially since you give no evidence to back it up. Like when I point out that the corrections to the PAGES record didn’t change any major conclusions, and you claimed it did. That seems like an actual example of a lack of reading comprehension. Try again, this time with some substance.

You’re the only one suggesting this has anything to do with ‘wit’. So you’re claiming that erasing the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age “didn’t change any major conclusions”.

Right.

Is there any point in continuing this line of discussion in light of that obviously ridiculous claim?

cshorey
August 10, 2016 at 3:27 PM

Never claimed it has to do with wit, but experience and levels of knowledge in a particular field. I was asked my qualifications, I gave them. It is you that have spent an awkward amount of time on this matter already. I feel I’ve responded enough. Do you think you can return to the discussion on the science? Can you confirm that your 16 times CO2 led temperature which you have called the general rule is really talking about the glacial/interglacial periods of the Pleistocene? If not, can you be less vague about your data?

I find it difficult to try to have conversations with people who lie about what they said one or two comments up – for instance, in this case, when you brought “wit” into this conversation by opening your comment (see just above) thus:

That wasn’t very witty.

cshorey
August 13, 2016 at 2:57 PM

So you don’t understand that when I said your comment wasn’t very witty, I was not automatically claiming that having a PhD imbues one with wit, which you implied two comments up, and this is stupid. You are now wasting your time and mine. Are you unable to discuss the science any further? Let’s talk more about those 16 climate shifts where T led CO2. Can you elucidate what you meant or at least say my assumption that you mean the glacial/interglacial periods of the Pleistocene epoch is correct or not?

You mean the ones that YOU keep suggesting occurred during the Pleistocene epoch? Do continue, I want to see where you’re going with this.

Just as I didn’t bring with into this – you did, they you denied it – I believe if you scour our comments you will find YOU brought the Pleistocene epoch into this, not me.

cshorey
August 13, 2016 at 5:44 PM

So you were unable to confirm what you were talking about. I brought the Pleistocene epoch into it because you were so damn vague. Apparently you still are. Can you confirm what you meant by the 16 examples? Can you see anything more solidly about it? Do you have enough knowledge to do so?

I was not automatically claiming that having a PhD imbues one with wit, which you implied two comments up

Still stuck on that… and another straw man. No, as we’ve already PROVEN with DIRECT QUOTES I never said ANYTHING about “WIT” until YOU brought that into the conversation, nor did I imply anything about it – never even mentioned it, until you did.

I already discussed the science. I’m going to see if you responded, but it may be a little while before I get back to you because I’m still stuck dealing with your straw man arguments about “WIT”.

cshorey
August 14, 2016 at 10:57 PM

I’m beginning to realize that you don’t know when your attempts at science have been responded to. I feel you still have not responded to repeated inquiries for the 16 times you say temperature preceded carbon dioxide. What do you feel I have not responded to?

“…a thesis title for my PhD which is Modeling High Temporal Resolution Climatic Records”

So basically it’s all a matter of interpretation – modeling – no actual measurement of any actual temperatures – somewhat similar to what’s going on with the TOA energy imbalance ESTIMATES, but that’s another discussion on another sub-thread. I would like to get to that one, but it seems you continue to say one thing here and another on your “official” page. And you don’t see how that indicates, actually PROVES, you’re not being honest on AT LEAST one of them. But at this point, it’s plain mentioning that is whipping a dead horse and only worth doing to see how long you will continue to say there’s nothing wrong with claiming you have a degree in one thing in one place but a degree in something else somewhere else.

As for “modeling” based on “proxies”, it’s odd, isn’t it, how when a set of proxies diverges from the (admittedly questionably adjusted) surface temperature data, suddenly excuses are made for why, but it is insisted those excuses don’t apply and don’t disqualify the part that seems to indicate what it is desired it SHOULD indicate, only the part that diverges from what is required to support one’s dubious beliefs.

Do you know what I’m talking about here?

cshorey
August 10, 2016 at 3:30 PM

I know you don’t know what you’re talking about here. Actual measurements of temperature, precipitation, sunlight, vegetation, humidity, topography, CO2 levels within and without the cave systems, measurements of actual growth rates, and actual isotopic incorporations. Once all that data was compiled, then I modeled the parameters to best estimate their relationships. This is how science is done, sorry you think it is the opposite of what it really is. Can you try to get back to discussion climate science as that is what this discussion is about?

The problem is science (particularly “climate science”) has become less about truth and more about achieving political and ideological goals. And those who are most determined to achieve these goals have made it clear that doing so trumps honesty and the scientific method. Typically their efforts don’t involved going forward, “standing on the shoulders of giants”, but rather denying what is already established, in effect taking us backward and substituting what they want to be believed with what was already well established, then calling their version “settled science”, no longer subject to review, comment, criticism or correction.

I suspect this is why YOU introduced the Pleistocene epoch into our discussions and am relatively certain the reason has to do with Shakun et. al. (2012).

Yet another example of politically and ideologically driven revisionism presented as science.

cshorey
August 13, 2016 at 7:06 PM

Look, try to follow this. It was YOU that said there were 16 times T preceded CO2, and it is YOU that can’t seem to tell us when those were, leaving ME to guess WTF YOU mean. This will be about the fifth time I’ve asked you to elucidate what you meant, and you haven’t. I am being left with the conclusion that you can’t, which is in line with the limited knowledge you’ve shown about paleoclimatology. As for the politics, it wasn’t brought there by the scientists. The science is still good, and when you follow the money, you find fossil fuel money pouring in to places like ALEC or Heartland which intentionally make a science debate political. CO2 causing climate change isn’t a liberal nor conservative political idea at all. The perception of it being that should be examined though. Now, which times exactly did you mean when you said T preceded CO2 16 times?

“cshorey” gave me a nebulous reference (Santer et. al. 2009) to an alleged study on TOA energy imbalance and refuses to give any link, any proper citation or even the title of the supposed study he’s referring to here.

I’ve given him specific links and proper citations.

He says he’s given you PAGES – which pages? The usual sites full of lies, propaganda and talking points they all run to in the end?

He claims “co2science is a website to cherry pick the story… It is not an independent, unbiased peer reviewed source”

Neither are any of the sources those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism typically provide.

I give them data straight from the IPCC and peer-reviewed sources and they keep going to some bogus blog on the web that is simply lies, propaganda and talking points.

Denis Ables
July 26, 2016 at 2:39 PM

I vaguely recall a reference to PAGES, but didn’t bother chasing it down, or perhaps couldn’t find it. Once I find that the alarmist refuses to even acknowledge the MWP was global and as warm, likely warmer than now, it’s a waste of time talking to them.

The other test is to point out that it’s moot, talking about temperature from the mid 1800s, because the only warming the alarmists have is constrained to one duration, namely 1975 to 1998. (They also DENY the two independent sources of satellite data, which is generally also in agreement with balloon data.)

This second argument needs no “peer-reviewed” study because our current warming began, BY DEFINITION, at the earliest bottom during the LIA, which puts it before the mid 1600s. That implies 200 years of NATURAL warming before co2 began increasing, but even the most rabid (“scientists”) acknowledge that it would have taken at least a century for co2 increase (at an avg 2ppmv per year) to attain a level where it could have even possibly had any impact on temperature measurement. That implies 300 years of NATURAL warming and brings us to about 1950. (But from the 40s to the early 70s was a mild cooling period, although the NASA/NOAA complex is busily revising history).

cshorey
July 26, 2016 at 4:23 PM

You were too lazy to try. Typical of your efforts. Love your conspiracy theories. What other conspiracies do you buy into? Now the current warming, by definition, makes your statements look ignorant. Did the 40’s – 70’s cooling not tell you your 300 year trend theory is crap. What about the previous 300, and the previous 300 to that? They don’t fit your “last 300” theory. This is terrible as usual Denis.

Denis Ables
July 26, 2016 at 4:29 PM

No science here, just another true believer.

You’re even dumber than I thought. The 40s to the 70s was a MILD cooling (hardly comparble to the LIA). Are you saying that the LIA was not cooler than subsequent temperatures?

And, when you go back further, are you then saying that the MWP was not warmer than the LIA ? It’s your statements, you poor soul, which debunk you.

oops, Mann did that on his bogus hockey stick graph using data from those bristle cone pines which were not even reliable, but then he cherry-picked his sample besides.

cshorey
July 26, 2016 at 4:33 PM

And I never said 40-70 was cooler than LIA did I? Where do your fantasies come from? I am saying that the MWP has been shown to not be warmer than today, and the rate of change is not comparable, and can be so only if you look at regional sections and ignore the globe. As for Dr. Mann, do you know how many studies independent of his have confirmed his findings? The fact you are still on Dr. Mann shows the cool aid drinker for who they are. Try reading actual science journals instead of JoAnne Nova blog site crap. That is not how science is done, and a Google search does not give yo expertise.

Denis Ables
July 26, 2016 at 4:38 PM

You don’t seem to even understand the implications of your earlier stupid statements, do you? I’m turning the dial on you….. not wasting any more time. Rant on, it’ll be boring for other readers, but you’ll love every minute….

cshorey
July 26, 2016 at 4:41 PM

That’s as perfectly vacuous as I’ve come to expect from you Denis. Enjoy your cool aid.

What it appears to be is an effort to collect all the climate propaganda and talking points in a single place and to get everyone speaking with one voice as they eliminate (by any means necessary) any actual science due to the fact real science tends to refute the claims of those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism.

Part of this effort was to coordinate those who were working on eliminating the validity of any science that showed there was a Medieval Warm Period or a Little Ice Age and the chosen method was to show these were local, not global, events.

Note their apparent goal here was to completely refute any other science so of course that was the conclusion they reached – as noted when they said, “Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period AD 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.”

If you’ve really been watching this you know this is a recurring theme – it’s never warmed this fast or this much in X years previous.

Except it has.

At the same link, note all the times they’ve had to come back and admit significant errors in their work.

No major conclusions have been affected by the corrections made to the Arctic data set including the conclusion that, during the period AD 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature among regions was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

So now instead of proving that the warming was unique on a global scale, they’re down to claiming the warming is unique in the Arctic only, which is also a dubious claim which no doubt would not stand rigorous scrutiny… but the important takeaway is they admit the current warming is really not unprecedented, but rather has 2 previous more significant precedents, all before humans were considered to be a primary driving factor:

The ranked order of the best estimate of temperature indicates that the warmest 30-year period is centred on AD 395. The period from 1941–1970 emerges as the second warmest 30-year period in the Arctic record, and 1971–2000 the third warmest, rather than the first and second warmest as reported in the original version.

They still are stuck trying to lie with their “No major conclusions have been affected” and yet they admit that the current warming is NOT unprecedented, it has two warmer precedents, as noted above.

And yet at the main PAGES page they are still collecting and the lies, propaganda and talking points, trying to serve as a central distribution point and paying so-called scientists to revise past “settled science” so that it no longer disputes their Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism.

cshorey
July 26, 2016 at 3:03 PM

And you couldn’t find it. God you’re bad at this. Funny that all my science colleagues have no problem with such a reference but you call it “nebulous”. What is “nebulous” is your thought process.

Actually as I mentioned to someone else in another post I found the paper you’re PROBABLY referring to but as with other things you’ve said it doesn’t say what you claim it says. Your stubborn refusal to provide a proper citation or even the title of the paper YOU are looking at looks more and more like you’re trying to hide it because you know it doesn’t say what you’re claiming and you’re afraid that if you actually provide it I will point that out.

cshorey
July 26, 2016 at 3:53 PM

Then they didn’t find the right paper. When I talked to Santer, he agreed with what I said.

And you still refuse to present a proper citation to this mysterious paper that Santer himself is apparently too embarrassed to list in his CV. When I provide a citation it’s not misleading or fraudulent. Why is it you ONLY provide references, not proper citations, that are misleading and fraudulent? Is it somehow tied to the fact you continue to have a degree in paleoclimate when, in all official circumstances, you admit your degree is actually in geoscience? Why would you misrepresent your degree? It seems that there is a common trait of deliberate misrepresentation of fact that is present among those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism. Is this just coincidence?

cshorey
July 26, 2016 at 10:45 PM

Oh bother. I went back in my notes and it was correspondence with Murphy. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012105/full
But anyway, you seem to think that Geoscience and Paleoclimatology are somehow divorced fields, and that you’ve “caught me” in something. Glad I can give you a little credit to finding me when all these other CFACT contributors claim I’m hiding behind a mystery veil. Nonsense as you have proven. But you can now investigate my claim that my PhD was in paleoclimate proxies and regional paleoclimate reconstructions using speleothems. So I guess you can argue yourself either way you choose so you get the conclusion you want to start with.
But let’s step back and realize that you and I started when you claimed that I present no evidence. I then reposted a list of evidence and you jumped on the first reference that I flubbed but have corrected above for you. You then went on an anomaly hunting trip which is anathema to scientific method, and accuse me of lying and fabricating, but give no good evidence. Yep, I made a mistake with my first reference because it has been a while since I looked at that subject, but now that I spend time to look at it again I will say it with more force. There is a measured energy imbalance at the top of our atmosphere and unless you are going to throw out the first law of thermodynamics, you better address it. If you want honest discussion, you better be committed to it being on both sides. I have told no lies despite your perceptions.

OK first I want to give you full credit not only for providing the link/reference but also for admitting to a relatively minor error, in the grander scheme of things. Further, I admit I was hammering you a bit too hard over this perhaps, but it turns out for good reason as it finally goaded you to stop believing you had provided an adequate reference when it is clear you hadn’t. It is rare for those, at least in my experience, to come clean even after they find they’ve made a mistake and so you deserve credit for not being part of that crowd.

Life intervenes – I have to go catch a sunset with some friends. When I get back I’ll take a look at this.

Thank you, sincerely, for digging up and providing the proper link.

As for the discussion of your degree – this has also been blown out of proportion. I accept you probably know a lot more about the specific area of geoscience that you wrote about in your dissertation that I did read and that is interesting and well presented. I’m not sure all your conclusions are fully supported, but I can’t say they aren’t, at this point either.

But that’s not the issue. You have a piece of paper or maybe a sheepskin or whatever somewhere that states the degree you actually received and you represent that degree online to be a geoscience degree yet here you claim otherwise. One or the other is untrue and you must admit that is a FACT. It has only become such a contentious point due to your repeated refusal to admit whatever document you have that actually names your degree apparently does not say what you claim your degree to be here or on line, or whatever.

In fact it is inconsequential towards this discussion, which as I think we both know involves a lot more than cave decorations or isotope ratios and reasonable conclusions we can draw from them – I am willing to suggest you know a lot more about both than I do.

But it goes towards being as precise and HONEST as we can with each other. From time to time you may catch me saying something that, due probably to ignorance, is incorrect. But it is unlikely you will EVER catch me telling you, deliberately, I have a degree in one field when in fact my degrees are in other fields, not that one.

But since the citation you give now is a tangle of references to other works, and seems to admit it is not, as you claim, simply a measured energy imbalance at the top of our atmosphere but rather another summary of other works that greatly depends on a lot of attribution, not simple measurements, also on estimates instead of actual measurements, I can’t see how you continue to make the claims you do.

We have simply not measured where every bit of the ESTIMATED energy incident upon the Earth goes. Claiming we have is simply not honest – and I suspect that a lot of that energy has gone to “storage” in the greening of the Earth, including the deserts, which is apparently not acknowledged by those who insist the opposite is happening.

That explosion of life didn’t happen without a lot of energy supporting it. Maybe you had better go back and check the figures, revise their estimates, or tell them to do so.

Because if their claims that there’s that much missing energy is true we WOULD be seeing more warming than we are, instead of the recent measured cooling:

Refer to the UAH global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2016, which is down 0.21 deg. C from the May value.

Also there has been a 2-month temperature decline of -0.37 deg. C, which is the second largest in the 37+ year satellite record.

We have simply not ACCURATELY measured where every bit of the ESTIMATED energy incident upon the Earth goes.

Along with that, we have not ACCURATELY measured the actual amount of energy incident on the TOA – though we have some reasonably good estimates I suppose.

But our estimates on how much makes it to different depths of our atmosphere are somewhat less accurate.

And our estimates of where it goes – well I already addressed that, above.

Finally, our estimates of how much is going out do also have limitations.

One question (well a series of questions all rolled into one) to illustrate this: In our estimates of outgoing energy, how small are the grid squares actually measured for each estimate that goes into the total, what is the estimated error for each estimate of each grid square measured, and do the grid squares measured cover the entire Earth 24/7/365?

I suspect your answer, if it is honest and thoughtful, will be a lot less complicated than my question, based on the work you cited:

The IPCC predicted (at one time) a minimum of .30 degrees C warming per decade based on the claimed TOA energy imbalance. Yet UAH satellite data shows less than half that rate.

Undaunted, the IPCC nevertheless came back with a prediction in 1990 of between .15 and .30 degrees C per decade – and the rate since 1979 has averaged .12 C per decade.

Jones admitted some years back that all the short term warming trends from the mid 1800s were approximately .16 degrees C per decade… I do not have the reference handy but will try to find & present it.

The truth is we have not actually accurately measured the temperature of the Earth even once, let alone twice, with enough certainty to make really any of the claims that are being made by either side in this – we simply do not have the technology to make such claims with any authority.

Is the world warming?

Yes, I believe it is.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I’m convinced it’s overall good, even though there may be some bad along with the good, as is ALWAYS the case with change.

Can we stop the warming, no matter what the cause (human or natural)?

No, not really. Change is inevitable and even if I’m completely wrong and humans have usurped nature and are now the primary force driving climate trends (really, that is the most ridiculous claim I’ve EVER heard of, even sillier than the “Earth is flat” and the “Earth is the center of the Universe” claims, though it actually quite closely resembles the latter as it is driven by the same belief that humans are much more important and powerful than they are in the grand scheme of things) I still submit that the evidence of a warming planet is overwhelmingly positive – whoever said the planet is already warm enough was lying.

cshorey
August 2, 2016 at 3:29 PM

“a tangle of references to other works”. Wow. I was wondering how you were going to manage to simply deny a peer reviewed paper. Too many references eh? How dare a science paper use references. So let’s leave it at, we have evidence of an energy balance at the top of our atmosphere, but you’d prefer to deny it. So if one has to take several variables into account and it is not a simple one to one measurement, then nothing can be measured in your world? I’m loosing the respect that keeps me in this conversation Mr. Frog.

The paper you referenced requires me to carefully review it and a number of the papers it also refers to in order to provide any reasonable, thoughtful comment. If I were to rush to comment on simply first impressions of the initial paper alone I doubt my comments would be the same as what I might say once I make an attempt to more thoroughly understand the referenced paper and the additional references given by it.

I am not denying anything. Although right across the top – without an in-depth review, mind you, it appears: We have claims of an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, we have not actually done anything more than some rough and insufficient measurements that result in an ESTIMATE of the total incident energy (which is not constant, by the way, yet the estimate acts as if it is) ESTIMATES of how much gets to the Earth’s surface, ESTIMATES of how much leaves the Earth’s surface, ESTIMATES of how much leaves the atmosphere and ESTIMATES of what happens to the missing energy.

We have not accurately measured any of those ESTIMATED things with enough precision, enough times, to actually claim we have a firm grasp of any actual TOA energy imbalance and even if we did, because I suppose there is likely one, so I’m biased towards believing it, the issue for me is finding where that missing energy is going.

People who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism have tried (and failed) to find it in the surface temperature trends. Recently they’ve claimed it’s hiding in the oceans but the evidence for that is also unconvincing.

The evidence I’ve seen, and that I’ve presented here, is that extra “missing” energy has gone into greening the biosphere – powering more life, at a time when those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism claim the opposite is occurring.

So in other words you continue to argue something that I may actually agree with – there may in fact BE a TOA energy imbalance, but that does not support your conclusion the only place it could possibly be going is global warming, because observations prove that is not the case.

“if one has to take several variables into account and it is not a simple one to one measurement, then nothing can be measured in your world?”

Straw man. I never said that. You did.

Things can be measured. The measurements to date on the quantities in question were used to make estimates. The claim of a TOA energy imbalance is based on ESTIMATES that are derived from measurements. It’s not really the alleged TOA imbalance that is the issue, since there are many ways to ATTRIBUTE the alleged imbalance to things other than the one those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism insist is the only possibility, despite clear and compelling evidence to the contrary.

Clearly, since the missing energy IS NOT going where it is claimed by those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, somewhere one or more of the OTHER ESTIMATES (and possibly the measurements that form a basis for same) are incorrect.

This is a classic case of failure to adequately check one’s work, perhaps motivated by a desire to leap to an attractive, yet clearly false, conclusion.

After writing this I should note the next month’s anomaly was published (or I found it after, anyway, not sure exactly when it was published) and there’s been a SLIGHT rebound so the streak stops at 2 months, the anomaly is still WAY DOWN and it’s unlikely we will see any ‘hottest ever’ record for 2016 even with the slight July rebound.

I do want to reiterate I give you lots of credit for eventually coming clean when you realized you gave me the wrong reference – to a paper that didn’t exist – and you then provided the right reference. In my experience it’s rare for people who argue your side of these issues to EVER come clean and admit they made ANY mistake so you deserve full credit for doing so. I continue to review the reference and the many additional references to other papers it provided so I can give a sensible, rather than a hasty, response but as I have said the issue is not so much whether or not there is a TOA imbalance, but where any missing energy is going, because observations show the allegedly missing energy hasn’t been heating the surface:

… the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

You should have focused more on “scientific method”, or perhaps even a decent course in Logic.

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 2:46 PM

Try to stay on topic.

Denis Ables
May 14, 2016 at 2:50 PM

It seemed (and still does) relevant. I was merely suggesting that perhaps you should have expanded your education beyond your little branchlet of climate science. After all, there has to be some reason why you cannot produce evidence to support your rabid belief.

Bart_R
May 19, 2016 at 11:26 AM

Before the method of science came the philosophy. Applying the method mindlessly without grasping the logic behind it is poor science indeed:

“Hold exact claims inferred from all we note assuming least, excepting least and linking by logic like parts of like things most possible (but no further than possible*) until new note need amended or new claim — Isaac Newton, Philosophia 1714, *amended Albert Einstein 1914.”

By all means, let us know what constitutes a decent course in Logic to your mind.

Denis Ables
May 19, 2016 at 12:24 PM

Right out of “1984”. Your bloviation reminds me of things like the “Department of Peace”. Ludicrous. Your cult refuses to even look at conflicting evidence.

I’ve seen no refutation of the fact that there is NO empirical evidence showing that co2 has EVER (even over geologic periods) had any impact on the planet’s temperature.

Al Gore showed you the way when he pointed out his graph showing a great relationship between co2 level and temperature. The only problem was he didn’t initially understand that it was temperature variation which happened FIRST, and very similar variations (tracking both up and down trends) in co2 level 800 to 2800 years LATER. This correlation implies that there is not even a correlation for the alarmists. Their hypothesis is implausible. What part of that logic do you not understand? When the data doesn’t support the theory, you’re in need of a new theory.

What part of that do you not understand?

Bart_R
May 19, 2016 at 12:34 PM

The empirical evidence for CO2’s impact on global temperature was first established in the 1950’s by Gilbert Plass (Canada) and Hubert Lamb (UK), following inquiries by Guy Stewart Callendar (UK) and the earlier work of Svante Arrhenius.

Your ad personam is simply invalid. The more you write, the more how wrong you are is clarified. And you write so very, very much.

There are now more than 11,000 new climatology papers in peer-review journals a year built on the works of Lamb and those who followed his footsteps, such as Charney, who established the parameters for ECS.

The test of science is refutation of previous claim. Refute those 11,000 claims from last year, and the ones from the prior year, and so on for six decades, and you’ll be worth noticing.

Present the “evidence” by Plass and Lamb Don’t chase readers around the web.,

Claiming to “refute” `1,000+ peer-reviewed studies which, in aggregate, independently arrive at the conclusion that the MWP was a global event, and likely warmer than now, is ludicrous. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Bart_R
May 19, 2016 at 7:05 PM

Disingenuous.

You want me to squeeze tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scholarly studies into a blog comment to show how absurdly huge your Big Lie is?

In the 1950’s, scientists were limited in the data they could bring to the problem, and estimated ECS in the range of 3.6C/doubling CO2.

As for the mountains of evidence leading to these inferences, there were over 12,000 peer reviewed scholarly studies published in climatology in the last twelve months based on the foundation laid by Plass. If you want to dispute them, good luck.

Denis Ables
May 19, 2016 at 7:54 PM

You’re obviously joking (or smoking something strong)

Quite a number of the peer-reviewed studies on the MWP, which in aggregate show the MWP was global, are much more recent than the 1950s; in fact, there are usually a few new confirming studies added every month !

Each of these studies is from a different location, different scientists, different proxy temperature measurements.

What’s most amusing is that you believers are ignoring thje fact that both of our weather satellites show no additional warming since 1998. (There may be a caveat on 2015 because of the El Nino – which was “natural” as even NASA admitted, and substantial.) Last I read, not even the El Nino (which began before mid 2015 ) managed to cut into that 18 year record of no additinal warming.

And the 6,000 boreholes around the globe definitely show the MWP to have been a global event.

Actually, I douibt that this would trouble you if you actually believe that 1,000+ independent peer-reviewed studies (co2science.org provides links) have all been refuted. That’s ludicrous.

Bart_R
May 19, 2016 at 9:17 PM

CO2Science is an Idsos website. I haven’t been back to it in a few years, but its practice of misrepresenting the studies it cites is unlikely to have changed. Why go to a secondary source for interpretation when you can go to the original papers?

You have not argued Plass’s paper on its merits. You have not made any dispute that touches the graph presented in the least. Your MWP argument is dismantled by the PAGES 2K Consortium study showing that there was no synchronous 30-year or longer global temperature trend in the last 1,000 years prior to the effects Plass in the 1950’s found would lead to global warming lasting centuries.

Your arguments, where they are not merely echoing my own argument and turning them upside down and backwards dishonestly, are specious, where they are not outright lies.

Who raised you?

Denis Ables
May 19, 2016 at 9:27 PM

Idso may be a skeptic, but he has no control over all the folks out there who have done peer-reviewed studies on the MWP. Many of those studies were done BEFORE the new definition attached to “climate change”. All he does is provide links to the researchers, organizations, and their study.

No, I have not read Plass’s paper at all, and apparently you don’t understand it well enough to describe his process. Based on what else you’ve said it appears a waste of time to bother checking anything you say. It’s much easier to consider what YOU can say (presumably in your own words),

It is clear that quite3 a few of the co2science links go to studies done after the 1950s; in fact the studies continue to come in from various countries.

Separately, there are the 6,000 boreholes which easily show the MWP to be global. This confirms the peer-reviewed studies (which apparently generally have more accurate temperature assessments).

Why do you believe that Plass et al have shown empirical evidence? That should be easy to answer.

Bart_R
May 19, 2016 at 11:36 PM

The Idsos hardly are skeptics. Merely they mechanically twist whatever they come across to a sort of perverse molecule-worship of CO2.

Cite specific studies, specific passages, instead of glittering generalities. Where are your 6,000 boreholes, exactly? What exactly is do they say?

Why do you continue to hop from topic to topic as the evidence of one shows you wrong, without acknowledging that you’ve been shown wrong?

“Hold exact claims inferred from all we note assuming least, excepting least and linking by logic like parts of like things most possible (but no further than possible*) until new note need amended or new claim — Isaac Newton, Philosophia 1714, *amended Albert Einstein 1914.”

That’s Plass’ process.

Let’s go back to http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1950ApJ…112..365S/0000365.000.html and have a look at how this claim by Plass developed by inference from all evidence:
Strong and Lamb calculated pressure broadening of wavebands for CO2 and detailed a radiation energy budget for the atmosphere in 1950. Their inferences successfully explained gross observations of the energy profile of the atmosphere for the first time. This is how the empirical evidence of spectroscopy in the lab and in the field were applied to found the field of climatology.

By http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49708235307/abstract;jsessionid=78C19F9D1B9066E0998CBFFE956509DF.f04t02 half a decade later, Plass’ work with sponsorship of the US Navy was able to show, “The results for different carbon-dioxide concentrations indicate that the average temperature at the surface of the earth would rise by 3.6°C if the carbon-dioxide concentration were doubled and would fall by 3.8°C if the carbon-dioxide concentration were halved, on the assumption that nothing else changed to affect the radiation balance.” Plass did not fully account for feedbacks, nor did he have access to data we now know tells us the Charney ECS is closer to 5.0 +/- 0.3 C/decade. That’s from empirical evidence and pure inference given simplest underlying assumptions, greatest parsimony of exception, and like logic of like parts of like things.

By http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27859450.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents less than a full decade from the first paper on the topic, Plass’ work had withstood all challenges of the peer-review process, of publication, of study and attempts to refute and had come through with the short of amendments of any successful scientific claim, and was the solid foundation of what we know now as the underpinnings of climate science.

I have not been proven wrong. The “co2 doubling” does not take into consideration (in the open atmosphere) that co2 capability to influence warming diminishes as it level increases. The computer models almost invariably project temperature increases which higher than actual, and the difference between model output and actual is widening. The doubling/halving postulate assumes that “nothing else happens”…. so perhaps qualifies for plausibility, (Lindzen doesn’t think so) but not EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. An example of empirical evidence would be the correlation (tracking both up and down trends) between temperature and co2 levels (over geological periods). Co2 has been increasing since about the mid 1800s, so lots of things (including women’s skirts, and the stock market) have been gone up during at least brief interludes. So what?

As I pointed out earlier, our current warming (such as it is) began NOT in the mid 1850s, but, by definition, at the bottom of the LIA. So there’s been 300+ years of NATURAL WARMING before co2 increase would have had any impact on our temperature measurements (Argue with Dr. Evans if you disagree on this one.) THE warming duration was from the mid 70s to 1998. It has now been stalled almost as long as that warming.

Idso specializes in co2 science (recall the name of his website) DENYing any links he happens to have to peer-reviewed studies is a typical alarmist attitude. Why then should anyone trust the alarmists?

One reference for the 6,000 boreholes study can be found at Joanne Nova website. (Her spouse, Dr. David Evans is an Aussie physicist who worked on climate models there for years until he became disgusted with the supposed “science”.) The boreholes are not constrained to just regions where ice core measurements have been made. The MWP global trend shown by the boreholes is obvious. The alarmists have no justification for their claim that the MWP was not global.

What “glittering generalities” do you have in mind? Surely not Obama’s Alaskan visit. Surely not the bogus “97% consensus” claims (if I mentioned that on this website). Surely not the claim that our two weather satellites show no additional warming since 1998 (with perhaps a caveat for the recent El Nino which even NASA admits was large, and only then because I haven’t noticed any recent update in Monckton’s report) . Surely not the claim that both NOAA and NASA are desperately making a fuss about “hottest” recent year when differences in annual global temperature amongst recent years is miniscule, well within the uncertainty error. Surely not my claim that the alarmists are basing their panic on just over two recent decades of increasing warming which terminated in 1998.

“hop from topic to topic”….. There are SO MUCH conflicting data and that message must get out. (The only alarmist rebuttal is “gish gallop”.)

“My evolution of climate change phrasing is silly….” Sounds like just another version of “gish gallop”.

“conjuring Idsos….” You folks get sooo excited about Monckton and Idso. Still DENYing that those numerous links to peer-reviewed studies is at least as valid as any studies you’ve linked ?

Bart_R
May 20, 2016 at 9:31 AM

Your claims are wrong on their face.

“The “co2 doubling” does not take into consideration (in the open atmosphere) that co2 capability to influence warming diminishes as it level increases.”

How to explain this so you see that you’ve just contradicted yourself within a single sentence?

That’s the influence of CO2 diminishing at higher levels. And at levels way beyond anything we’re talking about, the influence of CO2 would fall below the next strongest influence.. but right now, CO2 is five times more powerful than its nearest rival (particulates), and both CO2 and particulates come out of the same fossil waste dumping.. and that diminishing capacity is taken into account by measuring in terms of CO2 doubling instead of in linear terms such as ‘per unit’.

“The computer models almost invariably project temperature increases higher than the later actual temps, and the difference between model temps and later actual is widening.”

The difference between Hansen 1988 Scenario C and actual is widening, as the actual gets hotter and hotter, and so we know Scenario C is too low. In 2015, however, after a span of being slightly lower than actual of only six years, Hansen Scenario B was caught up with by actual warming and overtaken in 2016 (not shown on the graph). Otherwise, Scenario B has been within error bars of actual for its entire span. Which is not what Hansen’s 1988 GCMs were designed to do: they’re simulations of an alternate universe with its own pattern of volcano and trade winds, like to our universe in scale but unlike in timing. When you remove for volcano and trade wind, then Hansen Scenario B is too low compared to actual.

The Richard Lindzen who retired after three decades and 200 papers failing to prove his grossly wrong claims about climate, funded by Jim Inhofe to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars?

Who cares what someone who’s always wrong thinks?

And again with your ’empirical evidence’ soundbite. The historical evidence of MLOST vs. CO2 is built on pure empirical evidence. You’re simply lying through your teeth about that, over and over again, Big Lie style. Your family must be so proud of you.

“An example of empirical evidence would be the correlation (tracking both up and down trends) between temperature and co2 levels over geological periods.”

There are high resolution reconstructions as fine as 70-year granularity, showing that the known positive feedback relationship between temperature and CO2 level is locked within narrow spans.

There’s so much wrong what what you’ve written, it will take a while to respond to it all. But let’s start with just those three graphs showing you to have struck out three swings in a row.

Denis Ables
May 20, 2016 at 7:12 PM

Your bloviation is nonsense, and typical., The co2 now in the air already absorbs most of the few wavelengths it can. There are relatively few photons remaining at the right wavelengths. Log curves never attain 100%, but that doesn’t matter in the real world. What’s left is unlikely to even have a measurable impact. Clearly It will have much less impact than whatever effect the existing co2 level may have (supposedly) introduced.

Sorry, you’re also “simply wrong” about the “accuracy” of computer models. The spread between computer model output and actual temperatures is continuing to widen. These claims (including graphs of numerous models plus their alternative scenarios) are, naturally, provided by credible scientists on skeptical sites. And there is the separate point, that none of the models predicted this 18 year hiatus. Neither can the modelers explain it except by speculation. The models all include various estimates and assumptions, including feedback impacts,

Lindzen has retired from MIT, so now, not necessarily beholden to his benefactors. Your cult appears to devote considerable time to who pays skeptics, but rarely recognizes the existence of the enormous government trough it feeds from. Fossil fuel funding is insignificant compared to the government-funded climate change industry. It is a joke to believe that government agenda and its money provide no controls for the scientists feeding at that trough.

More gish…. Leaving aside the fact that there has been a hiatus insofar as additional warming there is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition which accompanies the greenhouse gas theory, namely that the first signs of this kind of warming should be in the troposphere about 10 km above the tropics. But weather balloons have searched for years and never found any sign of it. Santer evidently attempted a speculatve guess (not unlike warmists earlier speculations about the missing heat.) Nonetheless the missing hot spot implies that there is some other cause for our warming.

Bart_R
May 20, 2016 at 8:21 PM

You still at it?

CO2 is non-saturating, as was demonstrated by Plass in 1950; as its concentration increases, or as its energy increases, it increases in capacity to slow the progress of IR out of the atmosphere.

Your innumerate, frankly absurd claims are simply wrong. Small wonder David Evans has you wrapped around his little finger the way Jo Nova has him wrapped around hers. There’s nothing credible in either of their claims.. which I note you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to even mention where you got the claims from, and still have yet to provide page references or exact quotes.

This is simple: cite the peer-reviewed paper you want to talk about, by actual link to the paper itself on its publisher’s website or through the author directly, with page number and direct quotes, and then we can discuss your claims. Otherwise, you’re making stuff up, spinning, and have no credibility.

Denis Ables
May 20, 2016 at 9:02 PM

Unbelievable. Always the same bloviation. A claim that I’m wrong, and no useful content to prove the point. It’s the standard cult-like attitude. Never admit anything, obfuscate, bloviate, distract, and …lie (unless you really believe what you’re saying!)

Bart_R
May 20, 2016 at 10:02 PM

Specifics!

Give some specifics.

Where, what lines, exactly, do you mean?

You’re just handwaving over and over, and weaseling out as point by point your claims are dismantled, and all you do is skip a rail and move onto a new point or circle back and merely contradict.

The more you write, the more how clear it is you cannot back up your claims, and will play out the sham as long as possible.

Pay for the fossil waste dumping you do.

Denis Ables
May 21, 2016 at 8:19 AM

“Pay for the fossil waste dumping you do”…. Funny!

Now it’s not just constant accusations that skeptics are paid by the fossil fuel industry (You’d really get a torrent of skeptics kicking your butte if that was the case) but that skeptics (unlike Al Gore and those Hollywood folks running around on their own aircraft, or the politicians and government researchers, off to another international meeting on climate change) so now skeptics are also “fossil fuel waste dumpers”.

It’s amazing how far some otherwise educationed folks have deviated from anything resembling science, scientific method, and logic. Instead of seriously investigating skeptic claims against their dubious hypothesis of such things as – no empirical evidence, no greenhouse gas signature, and MWP being obviously a global event and likely warmer than now – they bloviate, obfuscate, distract, lie, and even call for censorship and jailing of doubters posing these issues. Amazing.

If the current herd of politicians weren’t so interested in taking advantage of this hobgoblin to scam the honest, hard-working taxpayers these dubious claims could easily be ignored and laughed off. As it stands this scam deserves to be added to the next version of “The Madness of Crowds….”

Bart_R
May 21, 2016 at 11:10 AM

Still seeing no specifics, nothing but handwave, denial and propaganda.

Pay for the fossil waste disposal services you use.

Denis Ables
May 21, 2016 at 11:37 AM

Amazing! No greenhouse gas signature, so the alarmist hypothesis is nullified. (and you claim that isn’t specific?)

1,000+ peer-reviewed studies on MWP being global and as warm, likely warmer than now, with links to all accessible via co2science.org. (No one study can confirm such a thing; it is the aggregate studies which do that job, but that’s not specific enough for you?

6,000+ boreholes which cover the globe and, as a compfetely separate entity from the 1,000+ peer-reviewed studies, show the MPW trend.

Other details (trees and vineyards no longer grow as far north as 1,000 years ago (or as far back as 4,000 years ago.

No empirical evidence showing that co2 level has ever had any impact on the planet’s temperature.

And skeptics are called DENIERs? Amazing !

Bart_R
May 21, 2016 at 3:53 PM

What exact, specific greenhouse gas signature do you mean?

Who told you there was no greenhouse gas signature?

Who told you the effect you claim is missing was a greenhouse gas signature?

Was it a peer-reviewed published study? Was it recent?

What is the citation? The title? The publication date? The page reference? The words the authors used?

Link to the original paper from the publisher’s website or, better, an author’s own institutional website if available.

Until you do this, you’re just Gish Galloping around waving your hands, and no one has the least cause to take your claims seriously, because we can go directly to original authors whose works have passed peer review and read them for ourselves, as it’s very clear we can’t trust your third-hand interpretations.

The more you write, the more how much is wrong with your weak, ill-defined, inexact thinking becomes clear.

Robert
May 21, 2016 at 4:11 PM

This should be interesting; I wonder if I should pop some corn and call d.a. s response entertainment or just go pull a book from a shelf and actually learn something….

My bet is Denis. A won’t cite anything but some denialist blogs or a cherrypicked paper or two that is cited by those blogs more often than in any further actual research.

Bart_R
May 21, 2016 at 4:43 PM

I find a few drops of fresh squeezed lime juice can really punch up popcorn.

Try pre-heating it, or using a spray bottle, for extra zing.

Denis Ables
May 21, 2016 at 4:13 PM

You’ve shown the readers nothing so far, except your ignorance. You have no understanding of climate science, only an eggregious belief, and on that basis you throw out all manner of insults? I’ll explain the GHG signature, but that’s for other readers’ information. I doubt you’ll even understand it, or the implications.

A necessary (but not sufficient) condition) for the GHG hypothesis to hold up is that there should be a warming in the troposphere (about 10km above the tropics.) The alarmist “scientists”, after struggling with the lack of this signature, went quiet. You shouldn’t have any problem googling that. Santer even claimed to see it in some really dubious data, but got laughed down on that bogus effort.

Insofar as the MWP studies, citing any one or two doesn’t prove much. It is in the aggregate that it confirms the global temperature. I do expect that even one at a distance should bring the alarmist claim into question. The links are all well organized at co2science.org.

You can learn more about the 6,000 boreholes by going to Joanne Nova’s website and googlng “boreholes”

Bart_R
May 21, 2016 at 4:34 PM

I’m not asking to be pointed at a disinformation website.

I’m pointing out that when you point people at disinformation websites, you have zero credibility.

Citation to original source, give a page reference, give a specific quote, because if you can’t defend your views with that sort of reference, then you must not have a defense.

It would be like me saying, “Tropospheric hot spot meme? Go to SkepticalScience.org where the links are well organized.”

The ratios from RSS, NOAA, and UW demonstrate tropical tropospheric amplification and are in general agreement with amplification from climate models, indicating that there is no significant discrepancy between observations and models for lapse rate changes between the surface and the full troposphere.

This shows that your repeated, wrong, loud, handwavy claims about lack of signature are completely bogus in too many ways to easily count.

The more you write, the more how wrong you are is clear.

Denis Ables
May 21, 2016 at 5:34 PM

and a “disinformation site” is what? any site which has beliefs other than yours?

Keep in mind that Dr. Idso at co2science.org may be a skeptic insofar as CAGW but it’s not clear he has any control over the authors of various MWP studies. Their funds and contacts are elsewhere.

There are more than 1,000+ peer-reviewed studies on the MWP. How many such studies would it take to kill the unjustifiable warmist claim that the MWP was not global?
Certainly a half dozen such studies sufficiently remote from each other and from Europe should be adequate to render that claim quite unlikely. These studies involve researchers and their organizations from 40+ countries, so A half dozen shouldn’t be difficult to find.

and the warministas feel no obligation to look into that because it’s a “disinformation site”?

You’re talking about citing sources. How about citing some studies proving that the MWP was not global? (Note there have to be at least a half dozen, remote from each other and from Europe.)

The only reason the warmists remain obstinate on this point is that, having admitted the MWP was likey warmer and global, when co2 level was known to be lower, they must also then admit that they can’t explain that. (which is why they DENY it). The entire reason for their chants of alarm on the current warming (such as it is) is because there is no other reason, which itself is a bogus argument.

A warmer global MPW demonstrates that SOMETHING else is controlling temperature. It is NOT co2.

Bart_R
May 21, 2016 at 5:46 PM

Blah-blah-blah excuse blah-blah-blah rationalization blah-blah-blah.

It’s simple. FIRST SOURCES. Go to the original publisher of the original paper, uncut, uninterpreted, unmolested by anyone not the original authors, having passed through peer review and publication.

This isn’t to say there’s no other possible source of information but scholarly works rigorously put through the safeguards of peer-reviewed publication; merely that going to the trouble of adding another layer of interpretation between the original and the audience is suspect at best, needless, and simply unacceptable even when there isn’t such ample evidence of bad faith as the Idsos have shown over the years.

So, until and unless you can abandon co2science and go straight to original sources, you have nothing interesting or credible to say.

You’ve failed utterly to do anything but waste time with your propaganda.

What sort of sickness prompts a mind to promote fossil waste dumping?

You want to use the scarce power of the air to dispose of your fossil wastes? Pay a Market-driven fossil waste disposal fee.

Denis Ables
May 21, 2016 at 5:56 PM

You’re providing absolutely no useful content. Merely mindlessly defending a belief which you cannot justify without providing links. Hard to distinguish between you and a religious zealot or cult-follower.

It sounds as if you’re also interested in giving the government power to control how much (and when) we take a breath !
Wow! and here I was thinking that the Donald was dangerous.

Bart_R
May 21, 2016 at 6:20 PM

Still more blah-blah-blah.

You have yet to directly cite a single first source to support a single claim you have made, which is remarkable considering the huge volumes of repetitious claims you have produced.

Privatization is the opposite of giving government power to control; privatization is where something the government controls is handed over to private sellers to put onto the Market, so the Law of Supply and Demand efficiently allocates scarce resources best.

Why do you hate Capitalism?

Robert
May 21, 2016 at 6:22 PM

Well done!

Robert
May 21, 2016 at 4:36 PM

Might wanna read up on the isotopes that demonstrate how much fossil fuel derived co2 is in the atmosphere.
“No greenhouse gas signature”.
Unless you meant something else and just need to write more clearly.

Denis Ables
May 21, 2016 at 5:17 PM

You don’t understand that the GHG AGW theory hypothesios includes a necessary (but not sufficient) condition, namely that there should be a warmer region in the troposphere, about 10km up, over the tropics. Weather balloons have been seaching for that “signature” for several years, with no luck. Without that signature, their hypothesis goes out the window, and they’re not off the hook if they ever do find it, because it’s still not sufficient.

Robert
May 21, 2016 at 6:15 PM

Really. You are on the intertubes claiming to be a climate specialist , or having a level of expertise, yet all we see are links to papers compiled at denialist blogs or more often cited on denialist blogs than in Google scholar. Point us to the best resources you can bring to the table.

Really, point us to the best resources you have supporting those assertions. A paper w your name as a coauthor would be a plus!

Denis Ables
May 21, 2016 at 7:02 PM

I have never claimed to be a “climate specialist”. Neither my education (math/physics, long ago) nor my work experience was in that area. I have followed the issue for the past few years with interest. You’re at least consistent, always wrong.

You also failed to understand the issue of independence between those studies and co2science, and the number of such studies and how few it would take to rebut the alarmist unjustified claim that the MWP was not global.

Really? All it takes is a “paper”?

It’s the “science” that you need to be exposed to.

Robert
May 21, 2016 at 8:12 PM

Your second para is an attempt to argue the science. Yet you claim no special skills or expertise. So, why do you think you have a better understanding than those thousands of scientists who have demonstrated their expertise in the their areas of specialization?

If you have some substantive body of research that show the findings of AR5 to be wrong, then develop a thesis and document your counterclaims as well as you can.

Denis Ables
May 21, 2016 at 9:17 PM

I’m sufficiently familiar with climate science to have many valid questions, which neither you nor alarmist PhD climatologists seem competent to answer, a shame. The scientific basis is available to anyone really interested in determining what is going on,but it takes some work.

In the meantime, as one of the harmless believers with no useful information to impart, believe on…..

Robert
May 22, 2016 at 9:37 AM

So. No expertise. Can’t cite a source. Got it.

Go back to your troposphere claim and try supporting that argument.

Denis Ables
May 22, 2016 at 12:02 PM

Readers can find sources, if they’re interested. (Those are the only readers worthwhile. Those who want spoon feeding generally use that pose as a simple minded attack on anyone who rocks their otherwise comfortable boat. In the case of the climate issue the term “expertise” is dubious, at best.
Why would I waste time providing you with “cites” You’ve already made your response clear, namely merely define all such as “disinformation”.

In the case of the GHG theory, as it pertains to AGW, that NECESSARY condition is well known. You’re either denying that factm, or not competent to google. Matters not to me which.

Denis Ables
May 23, 2016 at 9:22 AM

You have not shown any useful content at any point in this conversation, so other readers should include that in their assessment.

I don’t have to support the FACT that there is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition that comes with the AGW hypothesis – a requirement that there be a warm area in the troposphere about 10km above the tropics. Your own “heros”, have been struggling with the lack of that “hot spot”, in spite of millions of radiosondes. They’ve now gone quiet (for obvious reasons.

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 9:42 AM

Yup. There are some people who want a debate. The are either Internet commentor who think they have expertise, or those supporting an industry that has been scientifically establishes he’d as at fault.

Denis Ables
May 23, 2016 at 10:12 AM

More incoherent jibberish Robert?

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 10:16 AM

Show us the substantive body of research that supports an alternative hypothesis to what is in SPM AR5 WG1.

And, show us the public, business, environmental, and governmental policies based on that science.

Denis Ables
May 23, 2016 at 10:48 AM

yup, more

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 11:08 AM

Interesting that asking multiple times for evidence supporting a claim is considered “More incoherent jibberish…”

Thanks for a clear statrment of the status of the science supporting your denierland assertions.

Denis Ables
May 23, 2016 at 11:29 AM

Are you having trouble linking to the two referenced sites?

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 11:35 AM

The 3 year old blog and what else?

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 11:33 AM

Your ” missing-hot-spot/” claim is an excellent example of the incompetent and asinine claims put out by Internet commenters thinking they are arguing some science.

Did you do any research beyond a blog that is only referenced by Internet commenters?

If you want to defend a talking point, then start by mounting a substantive discussion of ALL the available research and analysis of the topic. At least reference a published review of the literature..

Denis Ables
May 23, 2016 at 12:33 PM

You fail to recognize that MOST of the “scientists” who are proponents of AGW recognize that necessary condition. They would LOVE to render it a “:talking point” at this point.

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 1:44 PM

And, exactly where is the list of ” “scientists” ” ?
What papers can you cite where they say that?

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 1:45 PM

Really? Quote marks around scientists….

If they aren’t real, then that rather puts a hole in your claim of importance …..

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 11:38 AM

Try saying that so way it doesn’t sound like denialist gibberish.
“…necessary (but not sufficient) condition that comes with the AGW hypothesis -…”

Denis Ables
May 23, 2016 at 12:36 PM

You don’t understand, obviously (and not unusual – for you).
That implies that even if the necessary condition is satisfied, it’s NOT sufficient. There needs to be MORE!

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 1:42 PM

“Sufficient” for what?

Denis Ables
May 23, 2016 at 2:53 PM

What do you think: For validating the theory, of course.

A necessary condition for you to be alive is that you have access to oxygen. However, that is not sufficient. You need food too. I’m going to have to charge you Robert, if you continue to need this elementary school tutoring.

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 3:13 PM

You still have not established the validity of Evans’ claims.

Denis Ables
May 23, 2016 at 3:16 PM

You’re being silly Robert. Are you just a kid?

That’s been done by the weather balloons.

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 3:38 PM

No, Evans claim. In his .pdf. That you repeat. That neither of you , in six years, have been willing to quote from any IPCC report.

You know the two claims. In the first section of his .pdf
The .pdf that has no footnote, no endnotes, no inline, no parenthetical….

” According to IPPC climate theory, the signature of carbon emissions and
the signature of warming due to all causes during the recent global warming both
include a prominent ―hotspot‖ at about 10 – 12 km in the air over the tropics. But the
warming pattern observed by radiosondes during the recent global warming contains
no trace of any such hotspot. Therefore:
1. IPCC climate theory is fundamentally wrong.
2. To the extent that IPCC climate theory is correct in predicting a hotspot due to
extra carbon dioxide, we know that carbon emissions did not cause the recent
global warming.
The hotspot is not incidental to IPCC climate theory—it lies at its heart, …”

Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

C. Hitchens “Mommie Dearest”, Slate, 2003

Denis Ables
May 23, 2016 at 3:27 PM

Silly. I’ll give you an easier one. Establish that Obama’s claims that a couple of Alaskan glaciers are receding indicates “anthropogenic global warming”.

We’re between ice ages. There will be some receding glaciers during a warming period. (When there are no receding glaciers, we’re likely into the next ice age!)

Also, it has been established that one of the two glaciers, “Exit” has been receding since about 1730, so more than a hundred years BEFORE co2 began rising and also long before our industrial revolution.

This was the fearless leader of your cult. Surely he has better science advisers than that !

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 3:32 PM

Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

C. Hitchens “Mommie Dearest”, Slate, 2003

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 2:50 PM

Your .pdf says
“According to IPPC climate theory, the signature of carbon emissions and
the signature of warming due to all causes during the recent global warming both
include a prominent ―hotspot‖ at about 10 – 12 km in the air over the tropics. But the
warming pattern observed by radiosondes during the recent global warming contains
no trace of any such hotspot. Therefore:
1. IPCC climate theory is fundamentally wrong.
2. To the extent that IPCC climate theory is correct in predicting a hotspot due to
extra carbon dioxide, we know that carbon emissions did not cause the recent
global warming.
The hotspot is not incidental to IPCC climate theory—it lies at its heart, …”

And we note that there is no footnote, endnote, parenthetical…… Now. Honestly, did that not make you have a bit of a skeptical moment? Something on the lines of ‘ Gee, this guy -who has basically published nothing in the field, is making three ginormous claims.

The first one has nothing cited – no quote from any IPCC report.

He also claims “IPCC climate theory”, which seems a bit off since the theory is from the body of published , peer reviewed literature; not the IPCC, who basically have compiled that body of research into a review of the literature.

And then, despite the nearly two centuries of published research, this guy- who has basically published nothing in the field – is saying virtually everybody who has demonstrated their expertise in their specialized field is wrong.

Then, to top it off, this guy can’t even keep himself from going completely off-piste by adding a political rant to the end of his .pdf .

Really, not a bit of that made you stop and ponder exactly how valuable a contribution this guy is making to the discussion?

Denis Ables
May 23, 2016 at 2:59 PM

Robert. You’re in need of more tutoring. The climate researchers at the IPCC have long since recognized the first part of that truth, namely the necessary condition, and they’ve struggled with it and (as I recall) Santer temporarily thought he found the “hot spot”, but that was ludicrous and he was laughed at.

It’s not necessary for Dr. Evans to repeat the entire history and earlier discourse and admissions. He was addressing those who know something about climate science.

If someone tells you an apple is going to fall (rather than fly) from the tree, do you demand a footnote which describes Newton’s investigation? That’s been done much earlier and understood by most folks.

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 3:04 PM

Then, since Dr. Evans couldn’t be bothered to actually cite the evidence for that claim, you as his acolyte, should.
Which IPCC report makes the claim he and you are claiming says that?

And what is the exact quote?

Denis Ables
May 23, 2016 at 3:06 PM

haha. More tutoring, eh Robert?

If you’re too lazy do do your own research you’re going to have to pay somebody to do it for you. I haven’t the time nor interest in pursuing that.

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 3:29 PM

Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

“Mommie Dearest”, Slate, 2003

You, and Evans both make a claim. His is 6 years old. You parrot it.

And neither have actually brought forward the quote supporting the claim.

6 years.
No evidence. Well except for the ever popular denialist claim ‘ go look it up’. And your dodge, “I haven’t the time nor interest in pursuing that.”.

An Internet commenter who hides behind their hidden history.
Who can’t be bothered to cite sources supporting their claims.
C. Hitchens then.

Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

“Mommie Dearest”, Slate, 2003

Denis Ables
May 23, 2016 at 3:43 PM

That quote in boldface is not appropriate for you warministas. It’s been used often by skeptics, because the “extraordinary claim” is that human activity is causing our current warming” (such as it is). Why? Because governments have found the AGW issue favorable for their “extraordinary” agendas. It is the warmists which must provide evidence before we bankrupt ourselves addressing a non-problem.

There is no empirical evidence that co2 level has EVER had any impact the planet’s temperature, even over geologic periods, when co2 level was 20 times higher than now. You have ignored that

You have also ignored the fact that both our weather satellites show no additional warming since 1998, at least right up to the end of 2015, perhaps longer, and that change (if there the hiatus did indeed stop) is only because of an El Nino which cranked up before midyear 2015. (Even NASA admits the El Nino is a NATURAL event, and that it is (?was) a big one.) No computer modeler has been able to explain this 18+year hiatus in temperature increase, even as co2 level is at its highest. There have been, literally, dozens of speculative reasons by the “scientists” who are proponents of AGW, as to what happened to the “missing het”, all of which bogus, and the whole ruckus indicating how “unsettledf” the science is.

Lindzen called the AGW hypothesis implausible.

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 4:10 PM

And, after aweek. It boils down to….

Tinfoil….
“Why? Because governments have found the AGW issue favorable for their “extraordinary” agendas.”

And then endless reciting of denialist blog assertions.

And no supporting evidence.

Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

C. Hithens. “Mommie Dearest”, Slate, 2003

Denis Ables
May 23, 2016 at 6:04 PM

.. and poor soul Robert (just as warmist PhD climatologists), have no answer for the the lack of additional warming since 1998 (even as co2 level continues to rise), nor do they have any empirical evidence that co2 has ever had any impact on the temperature. This is definitely “extraordinary claims”, and needs “extraordinary evidence”. None being offered, obviously. (Also readers, please note, no defense of warmist cult leader Obama’s claims of evidence – he who has access to all the science advising HE wants).

Robert is in the position of defending the classical little bearded guy standing on the corner with a big sign declaring that the end of the world is near. He’s pursuing hobgoblins, operating as a useful idiot for the authorities.

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 6:17 PM

And no supporting evidence.

Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

C. Hithens. “Mommie Dearest”, Slate, 2003

Denis Ables
May 23, 2016 at 7:40 PM

Robert asks for proof and when received calls it a “disinformation source”. But he cannot provide any scientific justification as to why he is just a rabid believer. Definitely a member of the Church of Climate Change.

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 7:46 PM

You used quotemarks around ” “disinformation source”. ” You are telling readers that I used that exact phrase in a reply to some source you cited.

But you don’t cite where.

Just as you won’t quote and cite support for your various denialist assertions.

Intellectually lazy and dishonest.

Denis Ables
May 23, 2016 at 8:01 PM

LOL. How about “disinformation” source? You’re really unworthy of any response. Citing anything such as this is ludicrous, but quite consistent with your earlier jabber.

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 9:26 PM

You used quotemarks dishonestly.
You’ve refused to cite any source that would support your assertions.

Which IPCC report makes the claim he and you are claiming says that?

And what is the exact quote?

Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

C. Hitchens. “Mommie Dearest”, Slate, 2003

Denis Ables
May 23, 2016 at 9:45 PM

So, where’s the extraordinary evidence. It takes a LITTLE person do make a BIG deal about where a quotation mark (in a online discussion) belongs. Bye.

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 10:23 PM

“There’s not even any empirical evidence.”

Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

C. Hitchens. “Mommie Dearest”, Slate, 2003

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 10:35 PM

You lied. You can’t source a quote. Doesn’t matter where r it is a comment here or a piece of published waiting in a science paper.

And now you are attempting to reinterpret what you did. With the evidence in full view. Really good example of how dishonest a person has to be to be an Anthropogenic Climate Change denialist.

“BTW, it takes a LITTLE mind to make a BIG deal about where a quotation mark (in a online discussion) belongs.”

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 6:39 PM

A note : ” little bearded guy” is denier speak for 97% +,of the science, the unanimous agreement of every scientific organization in the world, and the pesky little fact that there is a signed document acknowledging ACC and a global effort to combat it.

Tinfoil….
“Why? Because governments have found the AGW issue favorable for their “extraordinary” agendas.”

Well, THAT’s conclusive proof that the oceans didn’t function as a heat sink (the most popular of the theories you’ve dismissed without rhyme or reason). As well as dozens of other theories you’ve summarily dismissed, eh?

Forget science, you don’t even do logic.

BTW, the cherry-picked 18 year period of “hiatus” is a joke in and of itself (because we track everything in 18 year increments, don’t we?), and you have your facts wrong – 2014 at least tied for the hottest year on record PRIOR to the El Nino event.

Denis Ables
May 23, 2016 at 3:02 PM

Dr. Evans was a modeler during the period with the IPCC was censoring publications by any skeptics. But you never heard about that either, did you?

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 3:31 PM

Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

C. Hitchens “Mommie Dearest”, Slate, 2003

Support it.

“IPCC bunch was censoring publications by any skeptics.”

Robert
May 21, 2016 at 8:14 PM

What does that even mean?
“…issue of independence between those studies and co2science…”

“Log curves never obtain 100%!” What kind of gibberish is that bullshit. You are a fraud.

Denis Ables
May 30, 2016 at 10:13 PM

The curve in question is asymptotic to 100%. Do you understand limits?

Denis Ables
May 31, 2016 at 8:56 AM

Do you understand that co2 capability for increasing temperature diminishes as its level increases? And co2 level is now quite far out on that curve so its potential effect on temperature is very small already – see Joanne NOva’s website,for example. (Dr. Evans, an Aussie physicist and climate modeler, is her spouse.)

Labeling someone a FRAUD because you don’t understand, is REALLY STUPID!. In this case it’s also ludicrous and reflects on you, or perhaps merely on what you’ve recently been snoking (?drinking). I’m asking questions about the dubious GHG/AGW hypothesis. How can asking such questions be fraudulent? No warmist yet has provided satisfactory answers. Perhaps you’d care to explain why this libelous distraction?

Close, but no cigar. Per Le Chatelier increasing CO2 results in water formation from the vapor which is seven times the IR absorber as CO2 and the result is a decline in atmospheric heating as was shown by WWII when we burned down Europe and Japan increasing CO2 which forced water vapor out of the atmosphere.

If you think being married to a “climate scientist” is a credential then you are even stranger than was first apparent, but the facts of climate heating are such that any Junior High School sharp science student can learn all there is to know about it. No Ph.D. is required to understand the Le Chatelier Equation for the atmosphere.

The only fraud committed in this area is that by people like Jim Hansen and Charles Keating who wrote false papers, reported false data, promoted false concepts, lied about their work and so on. It is readily apparent and easily shown in both cases, as I do in “Vapor Tiger” on sale at Amazon.com for as little as $2.99 in Kindle format you can read on your computer with a free Kindle Reader from Amazon.com.

Denis Ables
May 31, 2016 at 1:38 PM

I mention Dr. Evans as Joanne’s spouse so reasonable readers who otherwise might not know, that there is climate science and experience in Nova’s referenced piece. As I recall, Dr. Judith Curry’s site also carried that same information about the diminishing impact of co2 on temperature as its level increases. Joanne Nova happens to be a science writer, and is more than capable of recognizing there’s no end of actions and BS emanating from the “scientists” who are proponents of AGW.

The “claims I make” include the Le Chatelier Principle, which is purely mathematical and the Medieval Warming, which has been well documented in the literature by many studies of the plant growth records in England up to Scotland. Such plant records can be translated into very clear pictures of climates at that time as plants are very specifid in the numbers of “degree days” they need to produce, mature and cast seed or produce fruit.

Denis Ables
May 31, 2016 at 4:33 PM

You’re preaching to the choir on MWP.

On Le Chatelier Principle (which I’m not familiar with) you included commentary about WW II fires which appeared (to me) to be the basis for that theory. If so, it’s more than mathematics and sounds as if a correlation between those fires and certain atmospheric meaurements at that time. If, instead, the WW II fires – along with various other measurements were confirming that theory then I’d certainly agree that it was stronger.

The Le Chatelier Principle is the basis of much aqueous, solution chemistry and all gas/vapor physics. It is fairly simple. To wit:

The thermodynamic behavior of gases in the atmosphere is defined by the Le Chateleier Principle, “The products of the concentrations, in moles per liter, of the reactants over the product of the concentrations of the products equals a constant.” A “mole” is the substance’ molecular weight in grams. The brackets indicate quantities are in moles. For the gases involved in atmospheric heating, water vapor and carbon dioxide, the equation is:

[CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt where “t” is the Absolute temperature.

The reaction is water vapor changing to water liquid as water vapor heats the atmosphere and water liquid does not. Water vapor captures seven times more infrared energy, IR, from sunlight as carbon dioxide. Thus, we modify the expression to see the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Thusly:

[H2Og] = Kt x [H2Ol] / [CO2g]

Clearly, increasing CO2 reduces the amount of water vapor in the air and where water vapor is seven times the absorber of IR as CO2 increasing CO2 cools the atmosphere!

This is what happened just before, during and after WWII as we prepared for it, fought it and rebuilt after. The decline was so great the climatologists predicted an ice age in the 70’s. It was only after Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr. lied about CO2 that we heard of “anthropogenic global warming.”

Pick any temperature data point on the above chart and you will see that CO2 concentration follows. That means temperature is cause and CO2 is effect. It is not the other way around.

Bart_R
May 22, 2016 at 2:42 PM

You sir, do not understand how to read a graph.

There is no timeline on the above graph: I know; I made the graph by comparing the 20-year centered CO2 level on a date to the 20-year centered temperature on the same date.

There is no cause and effect that can be extracted from this graph in terms of what came first or what followed.

The graph is solely for determining the extent of Charney ECS.

Now, if you want me to construct a cause-and-effect graph, I _can_ do that; I’ve done that in the past. Given what we understand about the feedback mechanisms and the lag times involved, it isn’t such an arduous feat.

Want to guess what that chart told me when last I used the actual data to look into the cause-and-effect question?

You, sir, do not know how to read a chart. The graph is the line drawn from the data. The base is time, the vertical axis functions simultaneously as temperature, the red line, and quantity of CO2, blue line.

It is very clear the blue line follows the red line in time. Therefore, if there is a “cause-effect” relationship, as you claim. Temperature is cause and CO2 change is effect. It is just that simple as are all the facts relating to this issue. They are:

CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight per molecule as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat producing 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy, starve the world, cause hunger, riots and wars?

There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover trapping heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses that admit and reflect energy depending on sun angle. Gases do not form surfaces as their molecules are not in contact.

The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, longest ever.

Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 rises followed temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Therefore temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against meat consumption.

Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”

Read the whole story in “Vapor Tiger” at Amazon.com, Kindle $2.99 including a free Kindle reading program for your computer.

Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.

Bart_R
May 22, 2016 at 6:14 PM

Your comments are all over the map, skipping rails and lacking coherence.

I created the freaking chart you’re extolling your expertise all over like vomit. It has no temporal axis. Time was removed from the data in the presentation. There is no time scale. The horizontal is CO2 level in ppmv from 280 to 400, for 20-year centered means from a merged ice-core (1800-latest available) and Keeling measurements. There’s far more Keeling data, and at far greater resolution and apparent accuracy, than there is ice core data, which accounts for the difference between the Keeling range (above ~320 ppmv) and the ice core range (~320 ppmv & lower).

The vertical scale is temperature anomaly, from -0.4C to 0.8C, from BEST’s MLOST dataset, covering temperatures in the range 1850 and forward, but not correlating those temperatures by date.

The temperature-CO2 intersections are unique only to the CO2 and temperature observations matching. There is no year, no month, no date.

How many ways do you need this simple fact clarified for you, before you comprehend that you are making fabricated, nonsensical arguments?

My remarks were in reference to the Vostok Ice Core chart which was the subject until you inserted your nonsensical, piece of crap artwork. Please see the Vostok Ice Core Studies chart up the line of posts.

Bart_R
May 23, 2016 at 12:56 PM

Yeah, yeah. I get it. You were vaguely pointing at the bottom of three charts and making ambiguously confused and untrue claims about it. I eventually figured out which of the three charts you were mistaken about.

While much is made by pareidolia of the appearance that CO2 level follows temperature on Vostok studies, careful examination shows this to be false, and the situation to be far more nuanced than your apophenia-induced error suggests.

Simply, there is not enough power in temperature solubility differences for temperature due Milankovitch forcings alone to drive the changes in CO2 level seen, nor to drive the temperature changes seen. Also, Milankovitch forcings poorly line up with the periodic effects seen. There must be positive feedbacks that dominate the changes by between 2:1 and 3:1. To make the sums work, CO2’s Greenhouse Effect must drive at least half the temperature differences seen either directly or in concert with positive feedbacks like water vapor and cloud changes.

Using my approach of tuning the lag between CO2 and temperature trends tells us the fit of CO2 following temperature is poorer than the fit of temperature following CO2. Recent studies suggest the turning points in the cycles behave differently, have other mechanisms, that come into play (and explain the particular length of the periods), so treating sections of the curves with the extreme points removed was suggested. When I did this I found a curious effect:

At high and low extrema, about 10% of the range, CO2 does seem to follow temperature with fair correlation, but both appear to follow something else — studies suggest most likely insolation (due orbital eccentricity, obliquity and net precession), and land ice shift effects such as Heinrich–like events, meltwater freshening of oceans and ice albedo feedbacks.

Between extrema, for 90% of the range, both the physical model of energy balance and the strong slightly lagged correlations confirm that temperature follows CO2, although again multivariate analyses show other factors must also play roles while the effect of insolation weakens.

But then, I’m just an amateur, and my “nonsensical, piece of crap artwork” would not withstand peer-review in its rough form.

We have demonstrated significant Granger causation of greenhouse gas concentrations by prior climatic conditions. The reverse causation, of climate by prior changes in greenhouse gas concentration, remains unproven, reinforcing an inference that has been made previously about the timing of glacial–interglacial transitions, although it is the large uncertainty (reflected in the width of confidence intervals) that matters more to this conclusion than the proximity of point estimates to 0. However, we should draw attention to our earlier caveats about the interpretation of Granger causality.

..They show that the climate variables are driven partly by solar insolation, determining the timing and magnitude of glaciations and terminations, and partly by internal feedback dynamics, pushing the climate variables away from equilibrium. We argue that the latter is consistent with a weak form of the Milankovitch hypothesis and that it should be restated as follows: internal climate dynamics impose perturbations on glacial cycles that are driven by solar insolation. Our results show that these perturbations are likely caused by slow adjustment between land ice volume and solar insolation. The estimated adjustment dynamics show that solar insolation affects an array of climate variables other than ice volume, each at a unique rate. This implies that previous efforts to test the strong form of the Milankovitch hypothesis by examining the relationship between solar insolation and a single climate variable are likely to suffer from omitted variable bias.

The energy balance without positive feedbacks would result in changes between one tenth and one third as intense as seen in the 100,000-year response. 90% of the time, CO2 level rise is indeed leading temperature rise in a manner typical of a positive feedback.

While it’s true rising temperatures drive CO2 out of solution in oceans, ice and soil, the 10%-30% of the temperature rise that can be attributed to Milankovitch and leading albedo shifts has so much lag in reaching the bottom of the ocean, and moving from Northern hemisphere to Southern, that the 100,000 year pattern is reinforced in a manner only constructive addition of forcings can explain mathematically. Without this lagged feedback cycle, the 100,000-year pattern would be more like the prior 41,000 year cycle, which itself could be seen as powerfully moderated by CO2 feedbacks more directly.

There are many forcings at play in 100,000 years. In 260 years, in the last six decades of that 260 years, the CO2 greenhouse effect predicted by spectroscopy clearly dominates.

“Keeling measurements?” David Keeling was a notorious fraud reporting microscopic changes in gas volumes two magnitudes, factor of 100, beyond the graduation in his measuring apparatus. I document his fraud in “Vapor Tiger,” on sale at Amazon.com Read it and weep. Your hero was a fraud.

Bart_R
May 30, 2016 at 8:42 PM

Defamation much?

Surprised you haven’t been taken to court for that sort of libel.

While I don’t know much about Keeling the person at all, I know how to validate a trend in data, and see no indication of what you claim.

Tell you what, you go after Keeling posthumously for this ‘fraud’ of his, and get a judgment in court to that effect, and I’m sure that will boost readership of your pile of malarky.

Of course, you won’t. Because all you have is malice aforethought, and lies.

I am sure the Keeling family is aware of what I have been writing about him for six or seven years, but they know I am right. Through his total career of 50, or so, years the total volume change in his “manometer” would have been 1.5 milliliters. He claimed to have tracked the change in CO2 to 0.03 milliliters, but his apparatus finest degree of accuracy, and even this by “eyeball” every Chem and Physics major learns, as did I, is 0.2 milliliters! Therefore, NOT POSSIBLE! And, every physical scientist knows, as do I, that Mother Nature wobbles when she walks. The only real precision is in the mathematics, and it is largely mythical. Keeling had to be cheating.

Bart_R
May 30, 2016 at 10:25 PM

You appear to not be very well schooled in metrology.

A bundle of 50 identical wires too fine to weigh individually can be weighed and the bundle’s mass divided by 50 for a very accurate measurement. While the operation cannot increase the number of significant figures in the result, to a scientist 3.0 x10-2 is no more nor less precise than 2.0 x10-1. There’s one significant digit of accuracy in either.

You either are simply bad at giving examples of what you’re trying to say, or far more likely, so Dunning-Kruger in the extreme in your nasty, low, malice that you don’t realize how great a fool you come off.

Your example of a bundle of wires does not apply to the “Keeling Manometer.” It is interesting that in spite of his claimed accuracy he did not seek a patent as the reality of that claim would have a been a great contribution to experimental science. I say he did not do it as it did not exist.

If with Dunning-Kruger you are alluding to “f(n) = n^2 =3n” it has no application to the discussion, along with your “bundle of wires.” Keeling claimed to make the reading directly through “telescopes!” His rather complete description is on the net in several places and the amazing fact is that no one has taken him to task. That is a measure of the corruption of our science, which is the greatest damage that has ever been done to a nation.

The issues in the work of Dunning and Kruger would seem more to apply to you and your ravings than me, You do nothing, but complain, present no quantitative arguments, cite nothing applicable, exhibit considerable anger and frothing at the mouth. While hiding behind a clipped name, with no credentials and nonsensical arguments. It would seem your invectives would be more appropriately hurled at a mirror.

Bart_R
May 31, 2016 at 12:26 AM

One significant figure is one significant figure is one significant figure.

What in the world are you trying to say? That paper does not describe the apparatus. Google or Bing for “Keeling Manometer” and you will get his whole story, including his passion for Dairy Queen ice cream cones.

Keeling claimed two significant figures with absolute precision on a mathematically perfect curve for 50 years and that never happens.

As well, his apparatus could not deliver such measurements. Go look at his apparatus and examine it closely. it is all there. That no one has hit him on it confirms the corruption of government paid science. It is not science. It is socialism, pure and simple.

Bart_R
May 31, 2016 at 8:44 AM

You’re the one making the extraordinary libel. Compounding the libel by being too gutless or slothful to actually cite the work you’re libeling except by handwave?

You’ve demonstrated zero competency to make these criticisms, like Willard Watts and his band of ignorant fools complaining about surface temperature stations, and zero will to learn the very basics of the topic of metrology and the mathematics of numerical methods it takes to make valid statements.

The more you write, the more how very much is wrong with you becomes clear.

I read that entire piece many years ago and it has nothing to do with what I am saying. I first became suspicious when I read that Keeling was only dealing with a five liter sample meaning the entire volume of the gas he was freezing with CO2 would be 1.4 ml at the beginning and 1.6 ml at the end of his life, a change of only 0.2 ml over 50 years! There has never been a volumetric gas measuring system that could determing four thousandths of a ml difference per year, which was what Keeling claimed. Had he developed such a device it would have been a great contribution and a patent worth millions of Dollars or a great gift to physical science, but Keeling filed no patent nor did he ever publish how he acheived such precision. Therefore, I conclude he never did it.

Wow. Amazing the range of areas of expertise of the denialists…… With no cites to anything, we now are being told no one else knows about this ‘problem’…..

Seems this in yet qnother a tempt to resurrect “A Brief History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Record-Breaking
David Middleton / December 7, 2012” wuwt
And that e&e paper trying to prove 100+ PPM swings in decades.

Robert
May 31, 2016 at 5:28 PM

And, we note, nothing being brought forward to support your assertions.

From where? What is your full name? Please provide your published papers, a normal requirement for a Professor as you claim to be. Failure to provide these facts and citations will give us the conclusion that you are a total fraud. Which is what I suspect is the case.

cshorey
May 22, 2016 at 6:06 PM

From the school of hard knocks, my name is “Adrian Vance is my intellectual bitch”, recently been publishing “Spanking Adrian Vance, 2016”. Guess what Mr. Vance. I think your a nut job and don’t feel the need to pump you with personal information irrelevant to the discussion. Go back to making movies about UFO’s. You’ll be infinitely closer to the truth.

Just as I thought you have no credentials, degree, publications, awards, or anything. You are an idiot fraud.

My work on the UFO mystery was legitimate, I was a speaker at the 1974 MUFON Conference in Kansas City as a result of my book “UFO’s: The Eye and the Camera” for which I was made “Fellow” of the Royal Society of Great Britain “…for his contributions to our understanding of vision and photography” as I proposed a “…two channel information theory of events simultaneously viewed and photographed” where differences in perception and picture could be used to form important conclusions. As a result, I became involved with Dr. J. Allen Hynek, met with him frequently and was a guest in his home in Evanston, Illinois on several of my trips calling on my publisher Encyclopaedia Britannica Films, Inc. This is all a matter of public record as I am authentic and you are not.

cshorey
May 23, 2016 at 11:46 AM

No, you didn’t think. You assume and ignore details of why I don’t have to play your game. And when you assume, it makes an ass of you and you. Like I said, go back to the UFO work. You’ll be infinitely closer to the truth. You are ignorant on climate science to such a degree it makes it nearly impossible to discuss the topic with you.

From what institution? When? Thesis title and where on file?
Why do I think you are lying? Well, you claim a degree that in my experience does not exist due to a lack of material to study.

cshorey
May 24, 2016 at 11:41 PM

And now paleoclimatology doesn’t exist because there is a lack of material to study? That took a lack of brain cells to conceive of. Archives and proxies Mr. Vance, figure it out. You have zero experience in this field apparently.

Again, you cannot answer the questions who, what, when and where? You are a total fraud, claiming to have a Ph.D. and cannot answer from where, title of your thesis, where filed, year of degree, etc. because you know I would get on the phone and give your name to an institution that would nail your ass to their gate with their lawyers in the court of jurisdiction. Universities love to prosecute people like you.

cshorey
May 30, 2016 at 12:33 PM

Again, I can answer the question and choose not to with the likes of you. That post alone is evidence of your off balance nature. If you want to make a case, address the evidence I presented instead of trying to attack the person. That is how science is actually done.

jmac
May 30, 2016 at 1:52 PM

Adrian is a crank nutter!

cshorey
May 30, 2016 at 3:44 PM

I think he may have made some reasonable contributions to the world in the past, but he’s clearly lost it in his later days.

You continue to avoid documenting where you got your Ph.D., where your thesis was filed and from which library a copy of it may be purchased. These are all very normal requests when there is doubt of the kind I have here documented over what you have written. I was raised by two college professors and surrounded by Ph.D.s all my life. I know how they speak and write. You are not one, clearly. Your writing is affected in the manner of a fraudster and until you answer these questions that is all you will be. And, be sure: Given the information I will be on the phone. I have outed several phonies of your kind and am very good at it.

cshorey
May 30, 2016 at 3:42 PM

You continue not getting the point that my background is not the topic, but rather the science of climate change, and since you can’t formulate an argument when I give you peer reviewed literature you can look up, and then address if you had a reason to do so, all you have is this personal tack. Good luck outing someone who can’t be outed. Sorry it took me a while to respond. I was out in the field doing actual Earth science work. It takes time and effort, and is honestly above your head. “You’re writing is affected” btw. You’re writing is pathetic, you started the belligerence here, so don’t try to judge me by the tone of this thread, you only judge yourself. Nutter.

Nice try phony-baloney: You are a total fraud and nothing you say is to be believed any more than your hokey handle.

My writing, for many major publishers is a matter of public record, see worldcat.org. My degree is from the Illinois State University in Normal, Illinois and California Credential, Masters Equivalent, fifth year, is from Cal State, Los Angeles. My awards are many, My books are two dozen, my patent filings are several, my blog,”The Two Minute Conseravative” has enough material to fill 25 novel length books, over 3300 pieces and everything I have done is authentic, most has been vetted, approved and published by the largest publishing companies on the planet. What do you have? Nothing.

cshorey
May 30, 2016 at 5:13 PM

Nice try, I have a Ph.D. in paleoclimatology using speleothem growth rates and incorporation of oxygen and carbon stable isotope ratios. Ask me anything you like on that, or on climate issues. I’ve already told you that details are not for such as you as you have clearly become destabilized over time. No need to feed personal info to nutters. Again, did you have any specific responses to the evidence presented. Do you need me to present it to you again to jog your memory?

That you will not say from where your claimed degree was granted, the topic of your thesis and where it is filed and published confirm that you are a fraud. It is just that simple.

I have put my degree and certification, which is a masters degree equivalent in California, my many publications, my patent fillings, etc. and thereby authenticated myself here. You have not. You are a fraud and again, it is just that simple.

That I will not say is because of your demeanor. If you can’t figure out how speleothem growth could link to climate, or carbon through the C3 vs C4 CAM pathways of photosynthesis, and the fractionation of C12 vs C13 that would result. Sorry Mr. Vance, you have too little background to understand this stuff.

You are a fraud and if not you will say where you got your degree, as have I, everyone here reading will know it. There is nothing I could possibly do to you by calling your school’s hall of records to confirm you are what you say. They get those calls every day, many times.

Speleothem, cave formation, has nothing to do with the atmosphere. It focuses on the simple chemistry of limestone. “C3” is an ancient form of photosynthesis, which has nothing to do with caves. “C4” is the more modern form of photosynthesis with a more efficient pathway than “C3.” CAM is thought to be a modification that is not fully resolved and therefore not called “C5” and appears to have some variability.

Again, you are a liar and a fraud with no degree and are likely mentally ill in addition. And, “anthropogenic global warming” aka “climate change.” it bullshit.

cshorey
May 30, 2016 at 9:19 PM

“it bullshit”. You call my writing affected, and yours is effected (I’ll be polite and not point out by what). If you looked into it instead of shooting your mouth off, you would find that even though C3 is more common today, climate affects the ratio of C3 vs C4 in any area with more xeric conditions favoring a smaller C3/C4 ratio, that each of those photosynthetic pathways fractionate stable carbon differently, and that difference can transmit in groundwater from surface to cave, and form a drip, that makes you a drip. But in your world you can just state that these obvious pathways have nothing to do with caves. You can’t prove that I’m a fraud, but you can prove that you are not very intelligent in this area. You are the epitome of this quote, ‘Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.’ – Charles Darwin i.e. You bullshit.

Just trying to pin you down on another of your lies. You keep talking about a PhD in Paleoclimatology, and there are such PhDs available.but yours seems to be in another field, NOT Paleoclimatology as you keep claiming.

Why are you misrepresenting the actual degree you got?

cshorey
July 26, 2016 at 3:57 PM

And here you show more of what you don’t know. When you get a PhD, you do a thesis of original research. The area I did it in was paleoclimate indicators in speleothems. If that’s not paleoclimate, please Mr Frog (your name is so inappropriate for you I’m giving you a new one for my own reasons) explain what it is. I’ll guess you’ll only have your usual whining and crying and avoiding of actual paleoclimate discussion. Shall we go back to the PETM?

So now you still won’t admit it, but you realize I’ve actually caught you in a lie – there WERE Paleoclimate degrees you COULD have attained BUT YOU DID NOT, yet you claim you did.

As for your work on speleothems, is it possible that, in doing that work, you found that:

Model ouput indicates that that large deviations of temperature or precipitation from average conditions in a single year can be recorded in speleothems.

Now from that sentence, it appears you’re putting the models (which are based on what you THINK reality is – as who would create a model that is based on something they don’t already believe to be true) first and then trying to massage the data to fit your preconceived notions – which is what we see all too often these days from those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism.

You can’t blame them – they are (in their own foolish minds) saving the planet, so it doesn’t matter they’ve thrown actual scientific method (accepting what the data actually tells you rather than fraudulently cherry picking or adjusting it to make it point the way you want it to) out the window. To them the ends (saving the planet) justifies the means.

I’m interested in which way you think a change in temperature alone affects the solubility of CO2 in sea water. I think you may be onto something important there and frankly it’s the only reason I haven’t decided to stop wasting time trying to reason with you at this point, other than my continued curiosity concerning your refusal to provide actual, valid, proper citations of the works you claim to be referencing.

Credit where due, I really do like your first and second slides on lecture 26, page 4. Do you have one for what VENUS would look like, were there not a thick layer of clouds? Shouldn’t be that hard to come up with.

People used to ask me if I knew what that “figure 8” thing on globes was. Your first slide is what I will use as an explanation from now on. See if they get it, or if I have to explain it.

cshorey
July 26, 2016 at 4:19 PM

Have you taken the differential albedo of Venus and Earth into account so that you can prove to yourself that the greenhouse gas heating is real and has real potential to change climate? As for “figure 8 thing on globes”, are you being intentionally vague? Maybe you should use actual science lingo with me and we can discuss whatever you think you’re talking about.

Was going to see if you would use it as another excuse for ad hominem just because I didn’t say “analemma”.

I wish you would stop using the term “greenhouse”. A greenhouse is a physical structure that uses physical barriers to actually trap heat. The atmosphere contains no physical structures and does not “trap” heat – it only delays it’s eventual loss, a critical difference which leads to confusion and misunderstanding when the term “greenhouse” is used.

Just because it is common to use the wrong term to describe something doesn’t mean we should continue to do so.

cshorey
July 26, 2016 at 4:38 PM

Sorry, your ad hominem trap didn’t work as you were to damn vague as to what you were talking about. I am using “greenhouse” in the sense that Fourier did when he coined it. Did you know greenhouse effect was described in the 1700’s? Would you like over two hundred years of scientists to stop using it because you don’t understand it is an analogy? As for the atmosphere not trapping heat, well if you argue like than, than neither does a physical greenhouse, and now you have to ask yourself, what the hell are you trying to argue? Each statement I get from you shows a lack of understanding and confusion. So were you trying to ask me if we have a solar analemma for Venus? If so, you must pause and see if you can figure that one out for yourself. The greenhouse effect on Venus is too strong to allow us to sit a craft on the surface for a year.

Sorry, your ad hominem trap didn’t work as you were to damn vague as to what you were talking about.

So you didn’t know I was referring to the actual slide YOU used to illustrate where the analemma comes from? Your dishonesty permeates your posts – you knew EXACTLY what I was talking about. And trying to blame the fact your primary argument is ad hominem is typical of your ilk. Sure, your faults are all my fault, right. Keep believing that. You only attack me personally because I encourage you to do so, right.

Yes, in this case I expected your response would be ad hominem, but I suggest that even had I not devised an experiment to test this theory you would have slipped some in, as you have consistently not only with me but in your responses to others from months ago. Did I make you do that, too? Is my control over you that complete and universal that I actually went back in time and made ad hominem your primary tool before I even knew you existed?

No, I was not trying to ask you if we have a solar “analemma” for Venus, and you know why. Go back and read what I said – my question was clear as was the fact I knew better than to ask it the way you did, which implies the very ignorance in you that you’re trying to draw out of me and, as usual, failing.

But let’s go back to more important things. Are you over your stubborn refusal to provide a proper citation to the paper you claim supports your ideas about the TOA energy imbalance? Or do you still need to hide it for some unexplained reason?

I am using “greenhouse” in the sense that Fourier did when he coined it.

So you think we should still call Pluto a planet as Clyde Tombaugh did in the 1930s when he first saw it?

Did you know greenhouse effect was described in the 1700’s?

Yes. Did you know that two wrongs don’t make a right (but three lefts do) and claiming we’ve been doing something wrong for that many years is not justification for continuing to do so?

Would you like over two hundred years of scientists to stop using it because you don’t understand it is an analogy?

There you go trying to claim I’m some sort of idiot. What I understand isn’t the issue and you’re wrong anyway, I understand it is an analogy. Another weak attempt at ad homiem. This isn’t about me, stop bringing me into it. This is about the fact that, as with so much else you and your ilk bring to discussions of this subject, the analogy is incorrect, false, misleading and likely a primary part of why you and your ilk cannot seem to get anything right when it comes to the relationship, or rather the lack of one, between Earth’s atmospheric CO2 and temperature/weather/climate.

As for the atmosphere not trapping heat, well if you argue like than, than neither does a physical greenhouse, and now you have to ask yourself, what the hell are you trying to argue?

Well without meaning to do so it seems I’ve caused you to reveal you don’t know much about how a greenhouse works or about a primary way heat is transported away from the Earth’s surface to be eventually radiated into space.

A greenhouse works so well primarily because it consists of a solid barrier that prevents convection. It does allow radiation and conduction, both of which are also affected by the fact it is an actual physical barrier, affects which are not present in the atmosphere, which has no physical barriers.

One huge flaw in the reasoning of those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism is an apparent failure to understand that a great deal of the heat leaving the Earth’s surface (land and ocean) avoids CO2 entirely by not leaving as IR energy (radiation), but rather as energy that is carried away largely by convection and also by conduction.

Each statement I get from you shows a lack of understanding and confusion.

Yes, a lack of understanding and confusion on your part, as you have learned many things incorrectly (including the idea the atmosphere works like a greenhouse when it doesn’t) and you display a persistent, stubborn refusal to consider anything that disagrees with your chosen world view. How more simply can I put it when I say that a greenhouse functions primarily by using a physical barrier that stops convection and your response is

As for the atmosphere not trapping heat, well if you argue like than, than neither does a physical greenhouse when, clearly, the way the two work couldn’t be more different, as one primarily suppresses convection (and also radiation and conduction) while the other(apparently according to you) primarily redirects radiation to some extent, but not nearly the way you think it does.

As for what I would like, what I am asking, is that we simply describe what is happening using an analogy that leads one to understanding, not to misunderstanding. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

The greenhouse effect on Venus is too strong to allow us to sit a craft on the surface for a year.

Well it’s true the surface conditions certainly would argue against successfully doing it. And even if we could get one there with a normal camera, what good would it do with all those clouds? However, if we could get an instrument that would view the sun in other radiation bands which pass through the atmosphere unimpeded, and if we could make such an instrument that could survive AND FUNCTION on the surface long enough… but actually we don’t have to. We can SIMULATE what a photograph of the sun taken each day from any fixed point on the surface of Venus would look like without actually going there and doing it by using math and the things we know about Venus, it’s orbit, etc. That was my point – never mind why. Just drop it.

The harsh conditions on Venus are mostly due to Venus being 30% closer to the Sun. Venus receives twice as much solar heating. It’s atmosphere is extremely dense.

QUESTION: Why would an atmosphere composed primarily of CO2 lead to higher surface pressure than one on a planet of roughly (or for sake of argument, exactly, even though in this case it is not so – Venus is roughly 0.9499 the size of Earth and 0.815 as massive) similar size, but with an atmosphere composed primarily of Nitrogen and Oxygen?

What is the relationship in an atmosphere between temperature and pressure – assuming there is one, of course.

On your way to gaining your degree in geoscience, that you consistently misrepresent as a degree in paleoclimatology (Why? Attempt at “appeal to authority”?), did you ever stumble across the concept of adiabatic heating? Could this have anything at all to do with the much higher surface temperatures found on Venus? The fact the atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is about 90 times that of Earth? Any affect on surface temperature, do you think?

Is there a reason that the record high surface temperatures for the various continents tend to be recorded at lower and the record low temperatures tend to be recorded at higher elevations? Surely you’ve been over this at some point in your studies and, hopefully, in your teaching.

FROM “UNIVERSE TODAY”:

The principal difference between the two planets is the lack of evidence for plate tectonics on Venus, possibly because its crust is too strong to subduct without water to make it less viscous. This results in reduced heat loss from the planet, preventing it from cooling.

Of course that’s just a theory.

Looking at Venus, could we see what the Earth looked like at one time before it cooled enough for water to condense and form the oceans, thus beginning the long, slow march towards life as we know it?

Although I don’t have the proof at my fingertips, there are theories that the Earth’s atmosphere was also originally mostly carbon dioxide.

Have you taken the differential albedo of Venus and Earth into account…?

Short answer: Yes. Although that does not change the facts that:

1) There is no physical barrier (i.e. “greenhouse”) on Venus or in it’s atmosphere and

2) Apparently you haven’t taken into account many other factors which all contribute to the surface temperature on Venus.

Again with your next phrase you prove you still don’t know what I think or know:

so that you can prove to yourself that the greenhouse gas heating is real and has real potential to change climate?

I’m going to stop wasting my time pointing out that calling it “greenhouse” is misleading and really somewhat ignorant.

It is true that our atmosphere keeps our planet warmer than it would be were it not present. It is true that exactly how much warmer is determined by water vapor – which is the primary gas involved in the process by which heat, both from inside the planet and from the sun, is delayed on it’s inevitable journey away from Earth.

What is NOT TRUE is that a gas present in a quantity of only 400 ppmv (or 4 molecules per 10,000, basically) exerts a controlling influence on either the surface, atmosphere or ocean temperature. Quite literally claiming this is the modern day equivalent of claiming the Earth was flat or that the Earth was the exact center of creation, with everything else revolving around it.

YES, it is true that CO2 does interact with a couple very narrow regions of the IR spectrum – water vapor, a much more prevalent gas, interacts with a much wider part of the IR spectrum.

YES, it is true that there is a relationship between temperature and the amount of water vapor that can be in a given parcel of air such that the warmer that air is the more water vapor it can contain generally, until saturated.

It is also true that CO2’s effects are logarithmic such that it’s ability to delay heat transfer takes place at very low concentrations and, similar to the fact it takes exponentially MORE energy to increase the velocity of a mass that is approaching the speed of light, it takes significantly more CO2 to add to it’s heat delaying properties for reasons which have been explained thoroughly after being demonstrated scientifically, but are still denied by those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism. I can find a curve that will help visualize this, with the horizontal (x) axis being the amount of CO2 and the vertical (y) axis being the affect on temperature and though this is just a generic curve, we are about half way across it and the curve has flattened out considerably – see curve, below:

Now the CLAIM that surface temperature increases linearly (or in any direct relationship) with atmospheric CO2 received a setback when, for the last two decades or so, there was no statistically significant surface temperature increase, as admitted by the IPCC and a group of climate scientists including Michael Mann:

… the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

This is not to say there is some relationship there – certainly given the physics and the admission that the relationship bears some resemblance to the curve below one would expect that as CO2 increases generally we would expect it to exert some upward influence on temperature. But as the past two decades show, there are other factors, natural factors, natural internal variablity and natural forcings, apparent lower climate sensitivity than claimed along with strong negative feedbacks, which are now proven to be the dominant, controlling factors in the change we’ve experienced as human CO2 production has continued to increase and atmospheric CO2 levels have as well, even though it’s far from proven how much, if any, of the latter is driven by the former.

Atmospheric CO2 increased relatively linearly as long as we’ve been watching it, despite some pretty dramatic fluctuations in human CO2 production, despite the clear indication from actual measurements that natural processes produce a much more significant signal in CO2 trends on all scales, as long as we’ve attempted to measure it accurately. And the FACT that CO2 was up to 3 orders of magnitude more common in the atmosphere and life THRIVED tends to blow the “we’re doomed if we don’t cut human CO2 production drastically NOW” argument out of the water. The icing on that cake is the admission by several persons and parties at the recent Paris (COP 21) climate conference that their real primary goal was simply to set up a mechanism to collect (and skim generous portions off the top for themselves) massive new revenue streams based on this fraud you’re helping keep alive.

At atmospheric levels something around or a bit below 200 ppmv plant life begins to struggle and die. We are still near a historically LOW point as far as atmospheric CO2 levels go. And with MUCH HIGHER CO2 levels life did just fine, the planet did not become another Venus, there was no runaway greenhouse effect, despite the fact atmospheric CO2 levels were over 1,000 times higher than they are now, according to most theories – or are you telling me this science is now being questioned and revised in order to prove your arguments as well?

While there have been exceptions, more often than not our best ESTIMATES suggest that, historically, temperature rises FIRST and atmospheric CO2 levels follow. And we just saw, over the last two decades, after dire warnings surface temperatures would rise catastrophically if we didn’t CUT anthropogenic CO2 production drastically, despite the fact we’ve INCREASED it dramatically instead (mostly in the developing world – you going to force them to cut back, because I’m not!), there has been no statistically significant surface warming over that period.

If that’s not paleoclimate, please Mr Frog (your name is so inappropriate for you I’m giving you a new one for my own reasons) explain what it is.

Here (and probably elsewhere in INFORMAL situations) you CLAIM to have a degree, a PhD, in paleoclimate. However, in FORMAL situations you state your degree is geoscience.

Now I happen to have degrees in several fields – but you don’t see me misrepresenting any degree I earned as some other degree that was available that I did not earn.

You can call me whatever your juvenile, name-calling tendencies incline you to call me – it makes no difference to anyone other than to display the fact to all that, despite your age and education, some part of you still remains around the 2nd grade level.

I’ll guess you’ll only have your usual whining and crying and avoiding of actual paleoclimate discussion. Shall we go back to the PETM?

I don’t see any “whining and crying” in any of my posts. I certainly would not mind going back to the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, if only to pound home the point, one more time, that there HAVE been abrupt and substantial thermal and atmospheric CO2 excursions that, according to those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, are simply NOT POSSIBLE without humans causing them.

However, once you get off your obsession with proving Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism wrong by emphasizing that fact, keep in mind I will want to get your explanation of why the times you mention are the exceptions to the rule that, generally, when we see increases in temperature and atmospheric CO2, the temperature increase comes first and the CO2 increase follows. Sure, there are many factors involved so there are exceptions to this GENERAL RULE, but over and over the majority of times our understanding is that CO2 increases FOLLOW temperature increases.

Now what was it, specifically, other than to emphasize it destroys a critical aspect of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, did you want to discuss about the PETM again?

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 2:57 PM

Try.

jreb57
May 11, 2016 at 10:42 PM

So you do admit you are a troll.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 11:34 PM

I admit I’m an educator who enjoys their job and when I look in the faces of my enemies, I am proud.

jreb57
May 12, 2016 at 10:16 PM

Ever teach thermodynamics?

cshorey
May 12, 2016 at 10:42 PM

Yep

jreb57
May 12, 2016 at 10:51 PM

I am an engineer and I had to study thermodynamics. You are either disregarding what the well established laws state or are ignorant about the subject. CO2 does not emit more energy than it absorbs (I believe that is the second law) so the net contribution to the global heat budget is zero.

cshorey
May 12, 2016 at 11:25 PM

I teach engineers and have noted that they think they’re scientists who have never been trained in scientific thinking. You guys work in the “pretty much certain” range, and haven’t been trained in the subtle ways of pulling information out of a complex system required of science. Your credentials don’t impress me, and coupled with the idiotic things you’re saying, I know you’re not qualified to discuss this. Some of these other deniers here are much better than you, and you are only an embarrassment to engineering posting what you do. Of course CO2 doesn’t absorb more than it emits, but you’ve ignored the entire problem of visible in, thermal IR out, and the complexities of an Earth system. God, you engineers think you’re scientists. News flash, you’re not.

Denis Ables
May 13, 2016 at 8:36 AM

And you claim you’re “trained in scientific thinking…” ?

That’s funny.

jreb57
May 15, 2016 at 9:33 PM

It sounds like indoctrination than critical thinking.

Denis Ables
May 15, 2016 at 9:56 PM

I think “cshorey” retired from the discussion. He evidently had never heard about the 6,000 boreholes, and insisting that the MWP was regional, in spite of the numerous conflicting studies. He could show nothing insofar as either studies nor a rebuttal of the trend shown by the boreholes, but he did argue that (for ex.) the recent exposure of trees was “cherry-picking”!, which was rather funny.

jreb57
May 19, 2016 at 9:23 PM

I doubt I could learn much from cshorey. Still, it is interesting to pick peoples brains. Sometimes something of value is gleaned. As far as his understanding of physics, it is limited and embellished by ideas that defy logic.

jreb57
May 14, 2016 at 12:48 PM

Who do you think designs those instruments you say you use to measure the heat you say is accumulating in the atmosphere. I am not trying to impress you cs, I am trying to refute you in your own area of expertise and based on our give and take am doing a pretty good job of it

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 2:57 PM

Technology is an outgrowth of science, not science itself. And yes, field can synergies and cooperate, but still be separate fields. But being an engineer does not make one automatically qualified to discuss complex Earth systems science.

jreb57
May 15, 2016 at 9:31 PM

I was discussing physics. I agree that climate is too complex to assign minor atmospheric gas as a major driver of global temperatures.

cshorey
May 16, 2016 at 12:32 AM

You clearly don’t agree, as I would never think that. I think that N2, O2, Ar, He, H, Xe are 99.9% of the volume of the atmosphere and have nothing to do with our greenhouse effect. The entire greenhouse warming we have is due to the trace gasses that have more than two atoms. CO2, CH4, O3, NO2, NO3, CFC’s . . . They’re trace gasses, but they make all the difference. I used to respond to such nonsense with suggesting taking 0.04% ricin into your body, but someone suggested to me I switch to iron. Would you like to try 0.04% iron in your body and then tell me that such trace amounts can have no effects on a complex system?

Wrong: 99.9% of all atmospheric heating is done by water vapor and for the kind of absorption you are talking about takes three atom molecules which is the reason N2 and O2 are transparent to IR an CH4, NO2, NO3 an some CFC’s absorb a little, but the major player is H2O.

cshorey
May 17, 2016 at 4:07 PM

It’s more like 95%, but you’re ignoring the biogeochemical cycling of H20 (10 day residence time and atmospheric levels set by ocean temperature) vs. CO2 (~150 year residence time, and not tied to oceans or other large rapidly fluxing reservoir of the same magnitude). So you’ve missed that water can’t DRIVE climate change, but can act as a serious positive feedback in the system. I already explained the molecular issue with greenhouse gasses before. You added nothing there.

CO2 was at 280ppmv 200 years ago, and now it’s 400ppm. That’s not an insignificant relative change. But if you’re convinced trace materials can’t have an effect on complex systems, may I suggest you take 0.028% Fe into your body system. I’ll wait to hear the results.

What is the sum of two “insignificances.” One bigger “insignificance” or the end of mankind?

cshorey
May 17, 2016 at 11:54 PM

Too bad you don’t know how to judge what is significant in this case. You’ve shown me all day you don’t really know how to bring a valid argument to the table and only talk like a juvenile debate student. Grow up Mr. Vance.

I am not discussing complex Earth systems, I am discussing fundamental physics. If you are aware how complex climate is why do you insist that a minor gas is responsible for the rather enormous amount of heat energy it would take to raise global temps one degree C when fundamental physics insists that it does not?

cshorey
May 21, 2016 at 10:26 AM

Would you be willing to agree that your body is a complex system, one which we don’t fully understand, and yet we know that minor trace elements can kill us by either not being there, or being there. You need some iron in your body to function, but if I took it up by 0.02%, you’d be dead. Your argument that a complex system can’t be affected by trace gasses, and that we can’t understand what generally happens when that takes place, is clearly fallacious.

jreb57
May 21, 2016 at 3:26 PM

Not the same argument. I am saying that CO2 does not have the effect that is claimed (that is adding heat to the planet). Gasses that absorb and re-radiate energy are a subtractive influence because some of the energy is radiated into space instead of being returned to the earth. Water has a far greater influence in this respect.

cshorey
May 21, 2016 at 3:57 PM

And you’d have to ignore the satellite data showing a reduction in outgoing IR EMR in the very wavelengths predicted by CO2. Have you ever looked at a remote sensing image taken in atmospheric windows vs thermal IR? You can actually see the effect you claim doesn’t exist in the drop in spatial resolution.

jreb57
May 23, 2016 at 5:46 AM

The last posts I read on this subject indicated and INCREASE in IR radiation which should be the case if the planet were warming. Which is it that you are claiming?

cshorey
May 23, 2016 at 11:42 AM

Maybe you should read scientific literature instead of posts. The total energy out increases in W/m^2 as a product of surface area x Stefan Boltzmann constant x T^4. Catch that T^4 and think about it. If I retain W/m^2 in a particular wavelength, the other wavelengths increase their output. So you need to speak about the different influences on different wavelengths.

jreb57
June 7, 2016 at 4:09 PM

The argument is not whetther bthe earth has warmed over the last 150 years; the argument is what is causing it. It takes an increase in energy to raise temperature. The sun produces energy. CO2 doe3s not.

cshorey
June 7, 2016 at 4:50 PM

When you put a pot of water on a stove keeping it warm but below boiling, with a fan blowing on it and the lid off, it has one equilibrium temperature. When you lower the fan and/or put the lid on, the equilibrium temperature can rise without increasing the stove energy output. The stove produces energy, the environment determines it’s retention. The sun makes the energy, the greenhouse gasses like CO2 help determine it’s equilibrium retention. Thanks for playing.

jreb57
June 8, 2016 at 11:31 PM

But CO2 is a gas. It doesn’t put a lid on anything. That is the problem with the greenhouse analogy. It is free to move about the planet.The effect is to moderate temperatures and it is far less effective at this than water which has a much higher specific heat not to mention the effects of state change. You’re welcome

cshorey
June 8, 2016 at 11:53 PM

So you start by saying that with a constant energy source you can’t change temperature, and I show you an example of just how it is possible. You then take issue with the analogy because you ignore that CO2 allows visible photons to pass right by but absorbs and re-emits thermal IR photons, and since visible is the main incoming component from the sun, and thermal IR the main outgoing component of the Earth, you see that CO2 indeed does act like a lid.
As for water, it has a residence time of 10 days and so is intimately tied to surface ocean temperature, and thus can’t drive temperature change, but can certain affect it. You’re welcome.

jreb57
June 9, 2016 at 11:45 AM

Over 50% of the thermal IR emitted by CO2 is radiated into space due to earth’s curvature and the fact that as a gas, CO2 rises (along with other atmospheric gasses) in the atmosphere. I seriously question the statement that the earth emits more IR energy than the sun. The earth like all other matter including the atmosphere can emit no more than it absorbs. You are ignoring convection between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere.

cshorey
June 9, 2016 at 4:59 PM

And you’ve already been corrected on this if you look back. Any addition of a gas that traps then re-radiates, no matter if the resultant is not 50/50, still adds heat toward the surface. Why is this so hard for you to understand? You fixate on the ~50/50 which is so insignificant, I’m surprised you even bother with it.

cshorey
June 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM

And if you put a pot of water on a stove below boiling and put a fan on it, or keep the lid off, you’ll find that you can keep the stove constant and turn down the fan, or put a lid on to increase the equilibrium temperature. The sun can stay constant, or if you pay attention it’s been decreasing output, and still have the temperature increase by the retention methods. You’ve ignored so much here, but thanks for playing.

jreb57
May 14, 2016 at 1:38 PM

“who have never been trained in scientific thinking. You guys work in the “pretty much certain” range”

Ok, I get it you are in the pretty much uncertain range which is what I have been arguing all along.

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 2:56 PM

False dichotomy showing a limited understanding of the argument.

jreb57
May 15, 2016 at 9:26 PM

When you haven’t proved your theory, it is uncertain. Peer reviewed means you can find some who agree with some of what you have said. That may be a process, but that is not proof, it is only a consensus among your peers. I am getting that there are many who disagree with you who are likely just as competent as you. Smearing the knowledge or integrity of people who have valid scientific points is not science, it is politics.

cshorey
May 16, 2016 at 12:27 AM

I have yet for anyone to respond to my multipart evidence post here. Prove, from the latin “provare”, to probe. To test. I gave you tests and evidence and fingerprinting studies, and a got silence in return. I can almost picture you guys with your fingers in your years yelling so loud you can’t hear the evidence.

You are the one making the claim about climate change and the cause. The burden of proof is on you. Peer reviewed papers are not proof, they are opinion.

cshorey
May 21, 2016 at 10:28 AM

“Peer reviewed papers are not proof, they are opinion.” I’m going to have to use that quote in public talks as a demonstration of the worldview science deniers often have.

jreb57
May 21, 2016 at 3:16 PM

Feel free to do so. When you can offer scientific proof that CO2 contributes to the energy budget of the planet, your theory might have a foundation. Until then, thermodynamics remain undisputed. You seem to think that if you can get a number of people to agree with you, that makes it established fact.

cshorey
May 21, 2016 at 4:07 PM

First piece of evidence, satellites have measured an energy imbalance at the top of our atmosphere (Santer et al., 2009), and the first law of thermodynamics holds. Where do you think the retained energy comes from?

Second piece of evidence: predictive evidence. Arrhenius predicted CO2 would lead and H2O could only follow as a feedback and that has been observed. Calendar predicted nights would warm more than days; observed. He predicted that the winter would warm faster than the summers; observed. He predicted that the Arctic would warm faster than any other region; observed. He predicted that the center of Antarctica would gain ice as the world started to warm from greenhouse forcing. Oh, and Hansen’s 1988 congressional model gave three scenarios for the future. Of course dishonest CFACT type fellow Pat Michaels came back saying that Hansen missed it and overestimated T increase, but he did that by only looking at the worst case scenario, when Hansen himself said the middle range was more likely. Guess what, middle scenario has followed up to present day T.

Third piece of evidence: Retroactive aspects; if we run models that only run the natural causes, they retrodict avg surface T fine up to 1980, and then go too low. If you add the human influenced greenhouse effect in, you see it fits much better after the 1980’s. In other words, AGW pulled out of natural background influences in the 1980’s, and you can’t explain the avg surface T since the 1980’s unless you do bring AGW in.

Fourth piece of evidence: Not only have global studies been done, but regional studies have been done, and the same retrodictive studies also find you need to bring in the human influence after the 1980’s or the models don’t balance.

Fifth piece of evidence: fingerprinting. Beyond the greatest T differentials getting the most influence (night and winter) we also have seen a robust outcome of all climate models since Smagorinsky and Manabe in the 70’s; a warming of the troposphere, and a cooling of the stratosphere. That too has been observed since the predictions were made.

Fifth piece: If we warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere we should see a rising altitude of the tropopause. Guess what? Observed (Santer et. al. 2011)

Let’s pause to note that you nut jobs love to say peer review is pal review, but what do you have as a substitute. “I went to Watt’s Up With That”. Pathetic.

Sixth piece: Oceans are warming too. You lovely people love to say that it hasn’t warmed in x years. Just keep ignoring the ARGOS data that shows oceans warming, especially below 2000m, and that over 90% of the heat imbalance that has been measured at the top of our atmosphere is going. And now April has been measured the warmest April ever, making it the 12th month in a row of record warmest temperatures.

Tenth piece: CFACT has rarely managed to tell the truth to the public without serious conservative spin. (all CFACT articles)

jmac
May 22, 2016 at 11:16 AM

Good post!

cshorey
May 22, 2016 at 5:56 PM

Thanks. You got to love how many here will say they’ve asked for evidence and never get it, and then if you do give evidence they’ll say it isn’t the evidence they accept.

jmac
May 22, 2016 at 6:54 PM

Exactly! I see that all the time. It’s never been about the science, even Exxon knew that.
How can anybody be so ignorant to think that if Exxon et. al. could’nt overturn the science with some credible alternative that “a right wing blogger” can with some right wing pseudo science from a right wing blog? Exxon would pay them billions for that.

Bart_R
May 22, 2016 at 12:55 PM

To be a bit fair, I think it fair to acknowledge the truth that peer review is not itself proof a paper is correct or its scholarship flawless.

This is where Newton’s Philosophy is most of use; when new observation require amending or refuting inexact claims, however reviewed, we overcome this fault in peer review.

Certainly, serial P-hackers like lately-demoted Judith Curry can get through peer review pretty much any old piece of crap they want.

But they get caught eventually, if the science community is vigilant for such deceptions. If only the community had the resources to put fingers in all the holes in the peer review process on a more timely basis.

cshorey
May 22, 2016 at 5:57 PM

True, though the general rejection of peer review as pal review here is astonishing. It’s as if science never got anywhere using the same techniques as modern climate science.

Bart_R
May 22, 2016 at 6:26 PM

Peer review certainly has much better results than random chance.

And if we look at peer review as a component of Newton’s Philosophy, it must be admitted to being one of the most successful measures to ensure inference from all available evidence, simplification of base assumptions, parsimony of exception, and like logic applied to like parts of like things as far as possible but no further, until new observation require amended or new inference.

And why ought it not? It’s a good method of improving overall quality, albeit within a scholarly publishing system that leaves a lot of room for improvement to get rid of baloney-slicing, P-hacking, review-rigging.. uh. My rant detector just went off, so I’ll just agree with you. 🙂

Yes, and in the case of Jim Hansen most of his “peer reviewers” also worked for him at GISS.

jreb57
May 17, 2016 at 7:35 PM

I think Hansen just wanted to keep his job. Government jobs have become very political in the last 25 years. Politics is anything but correct.

Bart_R
May 19, 2016 at 11:32 AM

Hansen famously went to the media to blow the whistle on NASA when it tried to cover up his research.

That’s not the action of someone who cares more about keeping his job than about doing it right.

You’re simply telling a false narrative.

Well, and defaming someone because you don’t like the message they’ve delivered.

By the way, Hansen’s about as conservative as you can get, politically. More than half of all Republicans agree with Hansen.

While more conservatives lean your way than people of other political persuasions, even among conservatives you’re in the minority.

jreb57
May 19, 2016 at 8:59 PM

Hansen’s computer algorithms failed to predict current global temps base on CO2. The reason is that CO2 does not contribute to the heat budget of the planet. It produces no energy. It does not amplify energy. It only absorbs energy and releases energy like everything else. The atmosphere serves to moderate temperature extremes and CO2 is a minor gas present in amounts of 4 molecules per 10,000. (400ppm) It is the governments of the world pushing this mantra and Hansen works for the government. When you have a good paying job, you do what your boss tells you.

Rajenda K. Pachuri (chairman of the IPCC) quoted in the London Guardian:

“We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do. If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products, we would be at their beck and call.”

Except for a handful of years, Hansen Scenario B has been within error bars of the actual global temperature. Not shown on the graph is 2016, which exceeded Hansen Scenario B.

You’re simply wrong on facts, even if your argument had the least merit — it doesn’t, misunderstanding the role of GCMs — on its face.

Who raised you?

Pay for the fossil waste dumping you do, and stop making vapid excuses.

jreb57
May 20, 2016 at 10:24 AM

Who indoctrinated you? More importantly, who are you trying to indoctrinate and why? Thermodynamics refutes CO2 as a temperature forcing agent.

Bart_R
May 20, 2016 at 11:28 AM

Who ‘indoctrinated’ me?

“Hold exact claims inferred from all we note assuming least, excepting least and linking by logic like parts of like things most possible (but no further than possible*) until new note need amended or new claim — Isaac Newton, Philosophia 1714, *amended Albert Einstein 1914.”

It’s true, I’m doctrinaire about exact science; the writings of the great scientists following in that philosophy and tradition, tested again and again against observation and rigorous logic, indoctrinated me.

Who indoctrinated you to.. whatever it is you do?

Did you know you can start a fire using a block of clear ice as a lens to concentrate the Sun’s rays?

That the Sun’s rays reach us through the cold void of space, which registers only a few degrees above Absolute Zero for most of the way between the Sun and Earth?

I suppose when you claim (very wrongly) that “Thermodynamics refutes CO2 as a temperature forcing agent,” you mean some specious disproven G&T twist on the Second Law. Except cold void of space and ice block magnifier lenses demonstrate the absurdity of your thermodynamic claims. Yeah, I’m doctrinaire about thermodynamics, too, having spent a great deal of time reading, and practising problems, and writing exams in that topic several years running. How were your exam marks in thermodynamics in your third and fourth year?

It happens I believe Newton’s Philosophy has greatly advanced us all, where we have applied it, and so I’m always happy to see others explore the exact sciences through that path.

Why do you hate the advancement Newton taught us?

jreb57
May 21, 2016 at 3:42 PM

I don’t disagree with Newton. I also know that the amount of radiant energy a body receives varies inversely as the square of the distance to the radiating body which means that the Milankovitch cycles play a part in climate change or so it is claimed. This has nothing to do with whether or not CO2 contributes to the heat budget of the planet. Every one knows that the sun heats the planet. I don’t want to discourage scientific research, I want to discourage people who base scientific claims on pseudo science..

Bart_R
May 21, 2016 at 4:39 PM

Bzzzt. You’ve just engaged in pseudoscience.

Mountains of evidence used by Gilbert Plass in the 1950’s confirms the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, with minimal baseline assumptions, parsimony of exception, and use of like logic of like parts of like things. There have been six decades of examination for contrary evidence, and the same standard as Newton enunciated tells us through Charney’s work, and Cowtan & Way’s work, and the work of the B.E.S.T. team and Keeling that ECS is at least 5.0 +/- 0.3C per doubling of CO2.

You’ve cherry picked what part of science you want to even admit exists.

Why?

jreb57
May 23, 2016 at 5:39 AM

Horse crap Ben. The term greenhouse gas simply means a gas that exists in the atmosphere as a consequence of the life cycle. Why do you insist on removing the gas that makes the green house green.

Bart_R
May 23, 2016 at 12:11 PM

Wow. You have a gift for utter doublespeak.

There are many GHGs that are not a consequence of ‘the life cycle’, such as CFCs, the subject of the successful 1989 Montreal Protocol that chased them off the market.. and led to a more profitable industry for substitute, better performing goods.

The GHGs you seem to want to worship as part of some Animism or Naturism cause are fine; it’s the synthetic addition of new CO2 from fossil that is causing an imbalance.

It appears you don’t mind being up to your neck in horse crap, and why not: it’s fertilizer, so it might make you grow; you’d find another 43% of synthetic horse crap on top of that inconvenient.

jreb57
May 19, 2016 at 9:31 PM

“While more conservatives lean your way than people of other political
persuasions, even among conservatives you’re in the minority.”

That is your opinion. When basic physics contradicts opinion you go with science This subject has already been politicized far too much.

Bart_R
May 19, 2016 at 11:41 PM

My opinion?

No. Poll after poll place agreement with Al Gore’s positions on climate change at 55-58% among Republicans, and among conservatives of all stripes outside of the USA in the range of 70%-75% in most nations.

As for basic physics, go ahead. Give us some basic physics to back up your opinion, free from politics.

I’ll even give you my standard for what I expect when I ask for physics: “Hold exact claims inferred from all we note assuming least, excepting least and linking by logic like parts of like things most possible (but no further than possible*) until new note need amended or new claim — Isaac Newton, Philosophia 1714, *amended Albert Einstein 1914.”

Like everything else you say, you have no basis or information for knowing anything about my publications, but go to http://worldcat.org input my name to the search system and see a list of 614 publications in books, national magazines, films, filmstrips, etc. and it is only 3/4 of my published work which includes over 800 copyrighted pieces by that largest publishers here an in the UK. And, this does not include my work in radio and TV or my speeches at large conferences, awards or patents and those pending.

cshorey
May 17, 2016 at 3:59 PM

You already gave me a link to your climate model. I’ll try to find more time later to more fully tell you why it isn’t a good model, but I already gave the basics. You didn’t take an atmosphere’s influence into account.

The link was to my work of creating a carbon economy in case all you assholes convince the people you have stupefied with Womens Studies, Black Studies, Environmentalism and now LGBT Studies at Berkeley by shutting down the Chemistry program! The lunatics have take over the asylum.

cshorey
May 17, 2016 at 11:52 PM

Oops. Confused you with Bob. I already had to take him to task for this bad model that you are now trying to pedal on me. The rest of your post was a rant if I ever heard one.

You want a rant? You are odd looking and your mother dresses you funny. You claim to be an academician, but cite no publications. Got to worldcat.org and put my name in the box and stand back while 614 credits roll by and that is only 3/4ths of my published work, you jerk.

cshorey
May 18, 2016 at 8:54 AM

You think I work at a liberal arts college. Fail again Adrian. I work at a science and engineering school. I’ve cited many publications for you, but you are limited to juvenile rants. Would you like to try Guy Calendar, 1938. Come back in a day and tell me how he did, ok?

Bart_R
May 19, 2016 at 11:33 AM

Not to nitpick, but I’m given to nitpick, even people I’m in general agreement with.

Guy Callendar.

Oh, and while CO2’s residence time averages 150 years, David Archer’s work suggests that to undo the impacts of fossil waste dumping will take more like 80,000 years overall.

cshorey
May 19, 2016 at 2:44 PM

Oops. Thanks for that correction. Residence of CO2 is always hard to drop and move on. The ocean buffering really makes it variable over time. And you’re right that residence time is not bleed out time.

cshorey
May 18, 2016 at 9:01 AM

Oh, and you missed that I’m a science educator, and chose not to run a research program and chase the publication monster. But your list of publications are movies with no peer review, and some of very dubious credulity (UFOs, a challenge for science – good one Mr Vance.) And none of your publications are in climate, and so you are talking to someone with a PhD in paleoclimate, but you think you know better because you can muster words like “jerk” and “asshole”. You’re a little boy throwing a tantrum. Try real science with facts and logic. I know it will hurt you at first, but try Mr. Vance.

How in the world does one get a Ph.D. in an area for which there is no data, no records, dubious evidence and no way to reconstitute the species alive then to determine degree days and other such parameters? I suspect that degree is fiction like anthropogenic global warming. How dare you say a trace gas is controlling the atmosphere and that another gas that is virtually transparent to IR and dissociates in sunlight in the first place. My expletives to you are all appropriate as you are almost certainly a fraud.

cshorey
May 18, 2016 at 12:44 PM

You’re literally wrong. That was pure ignorance. When I look at a stalagmite I have data in the thickness of growth bands, in the incorporation of oxygen isotopes and carbon isotopes. I have data in recorded weather data from stations around the cave system. I have data from empirical studies that regulate evaporation and infiltration, and the chemistry of precipitation. So much data in that one case alone, that it clearly makes your head spin. Have you figured out why the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming yet Mr. Vance?

Gas analysis is the most unreliable area of physical science and in the time you probably got your degree was very dubious.

The background radiation far that of your samples and even cosmic rays will give you trouble. All of the work is dubious at best. Take that from a Chem major.

Palleo evaporation data? Please….

The stratosphere is cooler because water vapor is not there and there is no CO2. Whether or not it is cooling is probably in question as the old methods of determining temperature there were unreliable given the microscopic amounts of material present where temperature is not a physical quantity, but a measure of its activity.

cshorey
May 18, 2016 at 1:07 PM

Oh, you’re a lingering cosmic ray fanatic? Um, how to start. The idea that cosmic rays form cloud particles was actually shot down in the paper that did the work. They pointed out that the nuclei were too small to be important to cloud formation, and so the link was broken. There is also the problem that some clouds actually have a warming effect. Not all clouds are cooling.
And wrong on the Stratosphere. It is cooling partly due to ozone depletion, and generally due to having reduced thermal IR introduced to it. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/314/5803/1253.full

No dummy, I am talking about stray cosmic rays screwing up your sampling of less than a drop of ancient material, which is almost impossible to keep pure. You are so unfamiliar with your own field you are talking about clouds when I am clearly talking about laboratory analysis. Therefore, I again say you are no more authentic than you “handle.”

cshorey
May 18, 2016 at 1:21 PM

Ok Mr. Vance, don’t cry too loudly. They neighbors will think I’m flogging you. I’m sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt of saying something semi-reasonable instead of saying something at stupid as what you just did. How many cosmic rays do you think are getting into a speleothem or a lab room? Enough to screw up sampling apparently. That is dumb for several reasons. Why do we find such uniform readings if your magical cosmic rays are getting into our labs? That’s the first stupid thing about your point. Just so you know, cosmic rays are almost completely absorbed up in the thermosphere. The rest are taken out in the Mesosphere. That’s the second stupid thing about what you just said. You could argue for cascades coming down to the surface after that, but they have no influence on a mass spectrometer. And you’d obviously be surprised (I’d say dumbstruck but you can’t become what you clearly are) to know how clean a lab room and samples can be kept.

Engineers are trained in science, but their work then goes on to what cannot be done, a consideration scientists do not address.
This prig is likely a fraud, given his language and conceptualization so we should ignore him and his staid language.

cshorey
May 17, 2016 at 5:41 PM

As a geologist I was trained in physics, but this does not make me a physicist (more than some as I tutored physics for years as well). I took chemistry, but don’t consider myself a chemist (though more than some as my Ph.D. was predominately on chemistry of speleothem growth and isotopic incorporation). Engineers are trained in some areas of science, but that does not make them scientists. Some are better than others of course. But in no case does that allow them to be an “expert” over someone who spends their whole career on a topic. But why so many do think they know better than trained climate scientists shows that there is something non-logical about this resistance. It is an ideological rejection, as is yours. You can only muster responses like calling a person you don’t know a “prig” and “fraud”. Can you muster a response with evidence, facts, reasoning, intelligent conclusions, and avoid making yourself look the fool?

jreb57
May 17, 2016 at 7:47 PM

“why so many do think they know better than trained climate scientists”

Because some of you ignore well established physical science such as thermodynamics. You can’t have it both ways. You yourself proved my argument when you pointed out that (only) 50% of the energy absorbed by CO2 is radiated back to earth. That means at least half of what CO2 absorbs is radiated to space. The logic is inescapable.

I am a much-published author in physical and biological sciences as well as cartography, particularly that of antiquity and credited both with solving the 300 year-old mystery of the Peri’ Reis Map of the world compiled from portolan charts known to have been drawn by Phoenicians in antiquity, see page 35 of “The Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings” by Dr. Charles Hapgood and the 1974 Summer Quarterly of The Smithsonian Magazine where I am also credited with re-discovering the method of Captain John Cook in placing islands in the South Pacific so well they have only been improved by satellite. They also confirmed the test of my work I proposed to confirm my method based on the variations in the gravity constant as both use pendula. My estimations of their errors were dead on both times.

The point of this is that I may have been a Chem major, Biology and Physics minor undergrad, but the nature of my professions has keep me in “school,” so-to-speak, for all of my long life.

The heating of the atmosphere is a simple system dominated by water vapor helped by about 0.2% by CO2. It is a trace gas. It is a poor absorber, but carbon combustion makes 80% of our energy and our evil elected ruling class sees money and political power in controlling and taxing carbon. The irony is that the atmosphere needs CO2 and fools like “cshorey” are only contributing to the problem with their nonsense like claiming that water vapor quickly seeks liquid water to get into while “manmade CO2” stays in the atmosphere “hundreds of years.” I put the them the Wohler Synthesis, if they can understand it, much less its implications and the fact that what they call for would require tiny pilots on every CO2 molecule. These people are truly evil, greedy, fraudsters that have cost American $7 trillion according to the Forbes analysts.

MrInterpid
May 21, 2016 at 12:19 PM

Thank you so much. You just shot one of the high priests of AGW in the a$$. So long to Bill Nye the non-science engineering guy.

cshorey
May 21, 2016 at 4:08 PM

Not really. It’s a continuum, but we know the climate scientists will have the best overview of the situation. Your terminology indicates you are under the misimpression of a conspiracy in climate science. That’s beyond belief.

30 more IQ points and you could be interesting. Now you are only irritating.

cshorey
May 19, 2016 at 6:43 PM

30 more points and you could be at 31 (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt). Now you are only lower than shit.

jmac
May 19, 2016 at 6:46 PM

LOL

Denis Ables
May 13, 2016 at 3:58 PM

I hope the students in your little science branchlet can get past your dogma.

jreb57
May 14, 2016 at 12:55 PM

If he (cshorey) is a teacher, when does he have time to teach? Seems like he spends much of his time on this blog.

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 2:55 PM

Took a few days off to investigate how the anti-science CFACT crowd is doing. It helps me find out if there is any good science outside of any echo chamber I may be in, and to understand how to teach this better. At CFACT, the posters have given me some interesting material to look at, but mostly not, and I often know your arguments before you say them now. I do the same thing when I teach evolution. I go to the ICR to see what they have to say and get a better understanding how to address it.

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 2:52 PM

The students can see the difference between dogma and deliberated evidence. Students these days are close to unanimous in understanding the human influence in modern climate change.

Denis Ables
May 14, 2016 at 3:06 PM

If they’re taking your course(s) for credit, I can certainly see why they’d try to convince you of that.

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 3:26 PM

That’s insulting to students. They’re independent thinkers. Take the other day when I was invited on a panel to discuss a talk by Alex Epstein and the American Association of Drilling Engineers. Several students approached me to say that appreciated having another perspective. One student made sure to tell me he went in ready to take Mr. Epstein at his word, but that my comments on previous interglacials and what can happen in a warming climate made him rethink. These guys can think on their own.

Denis Ables
May 14, 2016 at 3:36 PM

“insulting”? No, just practical. Way back in the day I was confronted by a professor who stated in front of the class that “If that was my attitude I wouldn’t pass the course” I (being on a partial scholarship and the GI (Korean) bill) responsded (also publicly) “No problem, I’ve just changed my attitude”.

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 3:59 PM

Um, that’s illegal. You can’t force attitudes on students. You can present ideas, and allow them the freedom to question and challenge. I even allow anonymous posts on class discussion boards. I make sure not to link attitudes to grades in any way. Thus you have poisoned the well again with no evidence and are committing the same logical fallacy as before.

Denis Ables
May 14, 2016 at 4:11 PM

“poisoned the well” ? That’s exactly what I expected. How can telling a true story be poisoning the well? Would not that claim, itself (if told to you by one of your students), be an attempt to muzzle the student, ie, censorship?

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 4:13 PM

I’m telling you that I wouldn’t do that, so your story does not apply to me, so in your characterization of ME and MY students, which you’ve suddenly become obsessed with and is not relevant, is poisoning the well.

Denis Ables
May 14, 2016 at 4:16 PM

You take stuff much to personally. Please recall that you said my assessment was “insulting to students”.
I responded that it was not, and that it happens. Tell me again, why you think that “poison’s the well” and why you’re so defensive?

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 4:19 PM

You assume an incident you had (and who knows what you said to provoke such a response from a professor) as evidence that students only accept evidence for AGW because I won’t pass them if they don’t, or that they’re afraid I will. That’s the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. You told me I should have taken logic. I can start focusing there if you’d like.

Denis Ables
May 14, 2016 at 4:23 PM

It was “back in the day”, and had nothing to do with AGW. It had nothing to do with you (unless it applies to you, and you certainly are being defensive). Speaking of “hasty generalization”…….

The comment about “logic” was related to the FACT that you don’t really understand what constitutes empirical EVIDENCE insofar as the case that co2 has ever had any impact on the planet’s temperature.

cshorey
May 15, 2016 at 11:54 PM

The evidence for CO2 having had an influence on Earth’s climate is overwhelming. The “Faint Young Sun” paradox is only resolved by CO2. The Carboniferous ice age is only explained by the drop in CO2. The Mesozoic warming is in step with increasing CO2 after the P/T extinction. To say CO2 has never had any impact on the planet’s temperature is an argument from ignorance. Because you don’t know the reasons for CO’2 influence on planetary T, you choose to deny it.

Denis Ables
May 16, 2016 at 8:23 AM

That’s not evidence. That, like the period from 1975 to 1998, is a mere incidental correlation. (co2 increase has been constant since about the mid 1800s. During that interim there are NUMEROUS other things which have increased for some shorter period.

If you can’t recognize the evidence showing that the MWP was global and as warm, likely warmer than now, you obviously don’t understand the difference, or perhaps just blindly continue to deny what your head should be telling you.

There’s a good reason behind the correlations between temp and co2 which track both up and down, bujt in that case it is temperature variation which occurs first.

cshorey
May 17, 2016 at 5:12 PM

Then you don’t understand the issues I just presented. What you miss is that it is not a mere correlation when you have a causal mechanism. We know CO2 is transparent to visible light and absorbs and re-emits thermal IR. We know that will cause a greenhouse effect. We have measured with satellites the drop in the wavelengths in light predicted from CO2 absorption. And as pointed out to you before, the exact physics of how EMR interacts with CO2 in the atmosphere was fully elucidated in the 1950’s when the Air Force was working on heat seeking missile technology. Do you also say that cigarette smoking and lung cancer incidence is “incidental correlation” when mechanisms are known there too? What I see in the MWP is that it was not as warm as it currently is, though close, and the rate of change is not equal, and the known cause (increased solar output) doesn’t work today. You’ve pulled out the one piece of evidence you think takes the whole science down, but it doesn’t. Your last comment again ignores that CO2 can both act as a driver of climate and a positive feedback to climate change. Climate can change for many reasons, and currently the increase of greenhouse gasses is known to be occurring, and predicted effects are happening and coming on line.

Denis Ables
May 17, 2016 at 10:53 PM

The “issues” you present are mere bloviation, certainly not evidence.

Obviously a correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but there may well be a unknown causal mechanism. In the case of co2 and temperature, the causal mechanism, if it exists, is the REVERSE of what alarmists are claiming. The only correlation (tracking both up and down trends over geologic periods, when co2 level was several times higher than now) shows that temperature variation happens FIRST, and very similar variations in co2 occur from 800 to 2800 years later.

“We know that will cause a greenhouse effect”. (But that’s only relevant within a REAL greenhouse, and hardly representative of the open atmosphere where satellites detect heat escaping to space. There is also no convection from within a greenhouse and neither does it experience any planetary feedbacks.) The co2 level has been much higher during most of our planet’s existence, and the earth has successfully handled that situation.

All the alarmists have is about a two decade period (from 1975 to 1998) when co2 and the planet’s temperature were both increasing. That is indeed a coincidental correlation. Why? Our current warming began, by definition, at the bottom of the LIA, (mid 1600s) so for 200 years before co2 level began increasing (which was about 1850). What’s more, at an average co2 increase of 2ppmv per year, it would have taken another century for co2 increase to have had any possible measurable influence on the planet’s temperature. That takes us to 1950. So our temperature measurements reflect 300 years of naturally caused temperature increase. But, from the 40s to the mid 70s was a (mild) cooling period, (and co2 level was, nonetheless, increasing) so now we’re up to 335 years of natural temperature increase.

Finally, from the mid 70s to 1998 there was indeed a warming, but according to both our weather satellites, there has been no additional warming since (so for the past 18+ years, in spite of an El Nino which cranked up in the mid 2015s and a continuing increase in co2 level. NASA admits the El Nino was a natural event and that it is huge.

You “see in the MWP that it was not as warm as it currently is, though close”. That’s merely YOUR observation, which ignores all the evidence. I’ve pointed out 1,000+ peer reviewed temperature studies , plus 6,000 boreholes around the globe, plus recent exposures by some receding glaciers. The latter clearly show that it was considerably warmer than now at higher northern latitudes during earlier warming periods. In fact, even the IPCC doesn’t deal with warming periods before the MWP, and they assign (pure speculation, no justification) a lower probability of their assessment of temperature levels during the MWP than for more current periods.

You’ve also gone one step beyond the climate models by making co2 not only a driver, but is also subject to feedback. The climate models assign the feedback to water vapor. In fact, they assign most of the temperature increase to feedback via water vapor (2 to 3 times the temperature increase caused by co2 increase). Nobody has a decent enough grasp of feedbacks to assign ANY numbers.

“Predicted effects are happening and coming on line”. There are numerous climate models, each providing numerous scenarios, and almost every combination is projecting considerably more temperature than has actually happened. The only scenarios which come close are those which assume we have already implemented radical drops in fossil fuel burning. What’s more the spread between computer model output and real world data is increasing steadily, as more time passes.

Alarmists consistently ignore the evidence which demonstrates that the MWP was as warm, likely warmer than now, and was a global event, and at the same time, attempt to justify their positon with irrelevant facts along with obfuscation, all presented as “evidence”. Amazing, but sad!

“an educator how enjoys their job?” What awakward language. I pity your students. From their faces you can tell your “enemies” are worthy of your disdain? What a mess.

cshorey
May 17, 2016 at 5:35 PM

That was a dyslexic reading. “an educator who enjoys their job” is what I’m seeing above. Even if I did write a typo, what a childish attack. Adrian, today you have led me to believe you are just a petulant child. Let me give you something of substance to respond to. The troposphere has been measured to be warming on average over the last few decades, while the stratosphere has cooled. How do you explain that without greenhouse warming? Go.

Where such a relationship is not possible it is either a misinterpretation of data, faulty instrumentation, etc. because two have to go “hand-in-hand.” Temperature measurements can be difficult things as they are not measurements of a physical entity, but measurements of activity.

I still say your language is staid, strained and like so because you are trying to be impressive. You are not.

cshorey
May 19, 2016 at 2:47 PM

So if the data disagrees with you it must be misinterpretation of data, faulty instrumentation, etc. How about Mr. Vance has a faulty sense of how science is done. Thanks for the clarification. A career in children’s films does not make you at all competent here.

You really are a nitwit. How do explain the fact the Vostok Ice Core studies showed that over 450,000 years the increase in atmospheric CO2 had been preceded by a significant rise in temperature indicating the resulting increase in the biome and subsequent dying of living matter were the cause of the increased CO2. How do you “Man is evil and causing climate disasters” folks dealing with that fact? Data manipulation?

cshorey
May 19, 2016 at 6:41 PM

Easily you fucktwit. In fact I already have on this thread and you’re too stupid to read it with any understanding. You have the argumentation style of a 3 year old and the constitution of a privileged old white piece of shit. We know this as a positive feedback because CO2 dissolves better in cold water (investigate the carbonate system if your three remaining brain cells can handle). How about that a warmer world is a wetter world which has been demonstrated empirically and theoretically and you’re stupidly ignorant about and have to ask me to guide you by the hand like an infantile dolt. Man isn’t evil. But you’re a moron.

For the effect you elude to, but fail to define, CO2 in the atmosphere or seas never gets anywhere near the point where the mechanism, you grab at like a lifevest, is of consideration. Your knowledge is very thin and you continue only to expose yourself as a fraud.

cshorey
May 21, 2016 at 10:24 AM

Dunning Kruger much there Mr. Vance? The CO2 in the atmosphere vs seas actually is within the response time of glacial cycles seen in the Vostok ice cores. And here we are now knowing full well the CO2 is leading, not lagging. Did you hear this April was the warmest April ever recorded on Earth? Of course March was the warmest March ever . . . oh just go back for 12 months now.

Gobbledygook: “The CO2 in the atmosphere vs seas actually is within the response time of glacial cycles seen in the Vostok ice cores.” This is utter nonsense! You are a total fool! Just look at the Vostok chart above and it is very clear that CO2 follows temperature change making effect where temperature is cause. This fact alone dashes the entire “CO2 caused global warming” hypothesis.

cshorey
May 22, 2016 at 6:02 PM

Wow Mr Vance, you managed a four syllable word. Of course the CO2 lags the T in Vostok as it is a positive feedback in the way I originally stated. You have said nothing to refute that point, and you have not responded to the evidence I’ve provided that CO2 is a driver as well as a positive feedback in climate systems. This is going to shock your tiny intellect, but science can be done by more than one person. Here you go again, though you keep proving your head is too buried in the shit to get this:

First piece of evidence, satellites have measured an energy imbalance at the top of our atmosphere (Santer et al., 2009), and the first law of thermodynamics holds. Where do you think the retained energy comes from?

Second piece of evidence: predictive evidence. Arrhenius predicted CO2 would lead and H2O could only follow as a feedback and that has been observed. Calendar predicted nights would warm more than days; observed. He predicted that the winter would warm faster than the summers; observed. He predicted that the Arctic would warm faster than any other region; observed. He predicted that the center of Antarctica would gain ice as the world started to warm from greenhouse forcing. Oh, and Hansen’s 1988 congressional model gave three scenarios for the future. Of course dishonest CFACT type fellow Pat Michaels came back saying that Hansen missed it and overestimated T increase, but he did that by only looking at the worst case scenario, when Hansen himself said the middle range was more likely. Guess what, middle scenario has followed up to present day T.

Third piece of evidence: Retroactive aspects; if we run models that only run the natural causes, they retrodict avg surface T fine up to 1980, and then go too low. If you add the human influenced greenhouse effect in, you see it fits much better after the 1980’s. In other words, AGW pulled out of natural background influences in the 1980’s, and you can’t explain the avg surface T since the 1980’s unless you do bring AGW in.

Fourth piece of evidence: Not only have global studies been done, but regional studies have been done, and the same retrodictive studies also find you need to bring in the human influence after the 1980’s or the models don’t balance.

Fifth piece of evidence: fingerprinting. Beyond the greatest T differentials getting the most influence (night and winter) we also have seen a robust outcome of all climate models since Smagorinsky and Manabe in the 70’s; a warming of the troposphere, and a cooling of the stratosphere. That too has been observed since the predictions were made.

Fifth piece: If we warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere we should see a rising altitude of the tropopause. Guess what? Observed (Santer et. al. 2011)

Let’s pause to note that you nut jobs love to say peer review is pal review, but what do you have as a substitute. “I went to Watt’s Up With That”. Pathetic.

Sixth piece: Oceans are warming too. You lovely people love to say that it hasn’t warmed in x years. Just keep ignoring the ARGOS data that shows oceans warming, especially below 2000m, and that over 90% of the heat imbalance that has been measured at the top of our atmosphere is going. And now April has been measured the warmest April ever, making it the 12th month in a row of record warmest temperatures.

So CO2 reaches back in time and causes the temperature to rise and that is “feedback?” Thanks, as you are the first to define the mechanism. Jim Hansen did not in the paper he was challenged to write defining it, but instead put up a bunch of old, meaningless charts of temperature changes from dubious locations. He was so eager to promote his explanation he charges $38 for the 38 page paper, but then we have long known Jim Hansen is all about money, period.

You are misinterpreting Santer’s paper as it is very cold in the upper atmosphere and he certainly did not use the fallacious term “feedback.”

You have yet to tell us from where you got your Ph.D. so that we can confirm it, the title of your thesis, where it was filed and published, if it was and where you teach.

Arrhenius made no such statement in his 1897 book and in 1899 he published an apologia for that book as subsequent work showed all his early ideas of heating Sweden with coal fires to produce both heat and CO2 would not work as CO2 is a poor IR absorber compared to water vapor that does 99.9% of all atmospheric heating. And, I prove it in “Vapor Tiger” which you are too cheap to buy for $2.99 in Kindle format at Amazon.com

“Retrodictive?” That is not a word, but then “feedback” has no definition in physics so you are off to fantasyland with all that garbage. Who is “Santer” I knew a guy with that name in Los Angeles. He had an Italian Sub Sandwich shop.

cshorey
May 23, 2016 at 11:44 AM

Your idiocy here is that you seem to think that there can only be one cause of climate change, when there are actually several possible forcers. And you ignore how a forcer can also act as a feedback. You have implied, whether you meant to or not, that water is at bigger driver on climate than CO2, but that ignores the fact it tied to the oceans and thus can only act as feedback. You are terrible confused about what can act as a feedback, what can act as a driver, and what can do both.

Robert
May 21, 2016 at 10:26 AM

You are attempting to prove your ‘science’ by using only a small portion of the data and research. Deliberate cherrypicking, or just accepting some blogs interpretation wo actually verifying by looking at the full scope? One is being intellectually lazy, the other is being intellectually dishonest.

The “frothing at the mouth” takes place because of the flagrant lies being propagated by alarmists. Even then, it wouldn’t be too bad if our politicians hadn’t glombed onto this hobgoblin. Taxpayers have to pay for this nonsense.

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 2:59 PM

It takes place because of “perceived” lies, that are often simply statements at odds with your preconceived notions leading you to misunderstandings, straw men, and cherry picked data sets.

Which, as proven by your posts, which prove you think you already know it all, would be impossible, since your mind is closed to any information that conflicts with your desired world view.

You’re spewing nothing but ad hominem now, just as you did 2 months ago.

Proving only you can’t teach an old fool new tricks.

cshorey
July 26, 2016 at 3:32 PM

That has nothing to do with PETM or the post-Carboniferous ice house. Is this your admission that you have no research skills and thus no viable background knowledge to discuss this. Is it that easy for me to prove you don’t know this stuff?

Already discussed PETM and the ice age that came DESPITE high CO2 levels observed (until all that life that resulted presumably caused the CO2 to become buried and stored away).

Also you’re neglecting to recognize the role of WATER VAPOR, the actual dominant greenhouse gas.

Also you haven’t explained why the majority of the times the Earth has warmed the CO2 level increase FOLLOWED the warming. Proving you’ve got cause and effect backwards, assuming that coincidence proves causation, which it doesn’t.

cshorey
July 26, 2016 at 3:41 PM

This is not sufficient discussion. The PETM clearly shows a greenhouse gas increase first, and temperature follows. Same with Permian ice house. You have not investigated this to any extent that shows understanding. You don’t understand, and that is plain to see. Now if you could also figure out the variation in solar output over geologic time and the solubility of CO2 in water as a function of temperature, you will figure out why this, you latest post, is another exercise in ignorance. You continue to make a fool of yourself pretending to understand.

Once again you’re either revealing your own ignorance or proving you’re lying on purpose.

It seems you MIGHT know something after all, except for the facet you seem to have things backwards AGAIN.

But let me give you an opportunity to clarify.

I think we both agree the world is warming, though it seems you stubbornly claim that I think otherwise despite me telling you several times yes, overall the world seems to be in a warming trend FORTUNATELY.

Now, with a strict focus on what happens to CO2 that is in water when the temperature of that water rises and all else stays the same – does the CO2 content of the water rise, fall or stay the same?

Corrals? What do livestock pens on farms have to do with this discussion?

But since you brought up tree rings, yeah, let’s discuss them!

When one examined the famous MBH hockey stick, an obvious point was that the authors suddenly switched, at a particular point, from the use of the ‘record’ provided by tree rings to actual adjusted (some claim fraudulently) measurements.

I am getting ahead of myself by failing to mention (so I will mention it) that the particular trees used by MBH for the hockey stick were in fact cherry picked… they didn’t use the entire Yamal tree ring data set – rather only a cherry picked subset of 10 trees. And where the data proved the opposite of what they wanted to show – well, see below:

When one looked at the REST of the data from tree rings, one finds WHY the MBH hockey stick did not continue to use the tree ring data and why it only used 10 cherry picked trees. At the point they discontinued it the tree ring data diverged from their intended conclusion. At that point it did not provide the narrative they needed, so they discarded the data that they didn’t like.

Put in simple terms, had MBH used the data they had without cherry picking and truncating it the way they did, the “hockey stick” blade would have pointed downward as the tree ring data DIVERGED from the measured temperature data.

Similarly the other proxies you mention are not as consistent and indicative as you suggest, nor do they support the conclusions you claim they do as I’ve seen the data that suggests they support the opposite conclusion – that the MWP and the Little Ice Age had wider impacts than you’re desperate to deny.

So who’s the “denier”? It seems liberal science is based on denial and suppression of evidence instead of observation. Also evidenced by the fact they always want to hide their data and methodology – the opposite of what actual scientists do.

Denis Ables
July 26, 2016 at 2:44 PM

It gets worse. McIntyre proved that the process used to determine that hockey stick will invariably do that, even when the input is randomized. The Mann-made temperature has been debunked 6 ways from Sunday.

Yes, THANK YOU! I went into more detail about that, providing multiple links, in a later response. I’ve been quite busy with other things lately. You are correct – so debunked that the IPCC quietly retired it. The blade was broken by the IPCC, then again by Mann himself, here:

… the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

This analysis of Dr. Mann’s work is completely wrong. They didn’t replace any data, they overlayed actual measurements with paleoclimate proxy data from trees. You are so bad at this and have such a limited fragmented and twisted knowledge, you can only mess this up. Pathetic.

Amusingly, you are the one who has it wrong. They used tree ring data, cherry picked tree ring data, for the early part of the hockey schtick. But once that tree ring data started showing a significant decline where they needed an increase (i.e. post 1960) they spliced in the “adjusted” data from surface temperatures instead. Plus their analysis consisted of a program that would produce a hockey schtick from random data as well. I will have to look this all up for the exact details – it is best to quote from the sources – but if you don’t remember the successful criticism that led to the IPCC quietly retiring the hockey schtick, in part due to the fact it broke when the warming curve flattened, then maybe you should be the one looking things up, not me.

And, finally, Mann’s own admission recently that the blade of the hockey schtick is broken and can’t be repaired despite all the people who are trying:

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

“a comprehensive review”, in other words, no new science, just new spin (with a preconceived outcome) on old data.

Much “science” in support of theories that are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism is not science, rather it’s just politically and ideologically motivated rehashing of actual earlier scientific work with the objective to overturn previous conclusions – so it’s no surprise when that is the typical result.

From the start the plan here was to abolish the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age so it’s no surprise that this was the result. This isn’t science.

Unfortunately for those who embarked on this exercise in futility, the problems became apparent quickly. So quickly that they wound up doing a major rework and restated their results – yet this did not change the fact that they used contaminated data and also had turned some data upside-down, so cooling trends looked like warming trends and warming trends looked like cooling trends. And this is what passes for science among those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism.

cshorey
August 3, 2016 at 5:11 PM

No where is there evidence that when they coordinated the paleoclimate records from various archives and proxies, that that would abolish the MWP. To assume there is a MWP for sure and it can’t be touched is the very mentality you are trying to criticize here. Why is it when you add up all paleoclimate records the MWP comes out as a time when certain areas had relatively high temperatures, but the 1970-2000 period comes out as warmer globally than any MWP 30 year run. So deny deny deny peer reviewed papers and suggest malfeasance with no direct evidence. I’m not impressed.

The PAGES study was found to be chock full of errors, the most blatant of which was they turned a whole series upside-down because they needed it to show the opposite of what it showed to come to the conclusion they desperately needed to reach.

After several admissions of error this was the result – and note the self-contradictory nature and the attempt to rescue the original propositions.

Three online corrections, two errata later, the authors had to write a corrigendum. How many times has such a major retraction/correction happened in this field?

Note the list of corrected versions. Finally the usual corrections were determined to simply not be enough or appropriate – a restatement, including major changes in what was originally claimed, was needed:

The original paper claimed 1971–2000 was the hottest 31 year period in the last 1,400 years. The corrected paper admitted, “the warmest 30-year period is centred on AD 395” and that< "the period from 1941–1970 emerges as the second warmest 30-year period". The 1971-1980 period falls to third place. And they're no longer talking about globally, they're now limiting their claims to the Arctic, apparently. And yet they still bitterly cling to their now proven false conclusions!

So much for PAGES!

Denis Ables
August 2, 2016 at 11:07 PM

“1941-1970 emerges as the second warmest 30-year period”

Interesting, since it’s well established that, from the 40s to the 70s was a mild cooling period. In fact, Obama’s “science” adviser, Holdren, was (in the 70s) an alarmist about the oncoming ice age!

His own paper (on cave decorations) is part of the effort to make the MWP and LIA disappear apparently. He’s pretty stuck on the idea, given that he’s dedicated so much time to proving it no matter how much other evidence shows otherwise. Little climate warriors, determined to push a fraud forward no matter how much one has to ignore reality to do so. SAVE THE PLANET even though it clearly is actually doing BETTER, not worse, with more CO2 and higher temperatures:

http://principia-scientific.org/tag/us-geophysical-research-letters/
A new study, based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU) reported that the rising levels of carbon dioxide have caused deserts to start greening and increased foliage cover by 11 percent from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa.

This also helps explain the alleged TOA energy imbalance – shows where the allegedly missing energy is going. It’s powering a burst of life, the greening of the deserts, making the world a better, more alive place!

What do you know, more CO2 and global warming are GOOD!

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 9:18 AM

REALLY !? What about receding glaciers recent exposure of trees growing at norrthern latitudes where they no longer grow? And ancient vineyards uncovered where grapes can not be grown now? (and trying to brush that obvious evidence off as “anecdotal” is BOGUS !)

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 9:26 AM

Would those happen to be cherry trees. PAGES. Read it, and try to understand.

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 1:35 PM

More irrelevant nonsense. Those trees have just been uncovered by receding glaciers which should be surprising to most, because trees haven’t grown at that latitude in that area for quite a long time (unless you expect them to pop up from under the glaciers) . (which, of course, implies that, in the past, it’s been warmer than now. (The Mendenhall tree is 1,000 years old, so was growing at that latitude during the MWP. That’s a long way from Europe.) The uncovered Alps trees are dated 4,000 years old.

There are not only 1,000+ peer reviewed studies spanning the last couple of decades, but new ones regularly showing up which also confirm MWP was a global trend, because many other areas of the globe show temperatures as high, likely higher than now. Then, separately, there are 6,000 boreholes (not limited to just ice probes, so scattered all over the globe) which also show the MWP trend.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 1:41 PM

More ignorant nonsense. Glaciers can advance in a warming climate. Warmer air holds more moisture than cold air and thus can snow more in cold places as they warm. You are not proving what you think. Again, you need a more statistical approach, which has been done, and shows overall ice loss, and it actually explains half the rise in sea level. Thermal expansion is about the other half.
And again, when all paleoclimate records come in, yes, the medieval period was warmer than the later Little Ice Age, but it does not have the same rate and signature of climate change we are observing today. The only sharp rates were western Europe.

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 2:03 PM

You’ve, as usual, missed the point. Of course glaciers can advance in a warming climate. Some are doing that now. We are, after all, between ice ages. When all glaciers are growing we’ll likely be into our next ice age.

“The only sharp rates were western Europe”. Show links to the global data studies which confirm that. (“PAGES” is not sufficient”). In the best case that study might have a couple of locations where temperature could not be determined, or appeared to show no MWP temperature trend. (Not unusual, but in the face of numerous studies showing the MWP trend, there is no justification for claiming the MWP was regional.)
Your claim is based on no more than a “cherry-picked” location.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 2:26 PM

And you’ve missed the point that you can’t pick and choose which glaciers you want based on whether they are growing or shrinking at any time, unless you take the full climatic context in. By randomizing samples in the studies that have taken over 30 glaciers into account, that bias is removed. Your bias is still in place.

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 2:58 PM

Sorry. Makes a lot more sense than you picking one region and claiming the warming trend there (MWP) was nowhere else without any justification.

I notice you continue to ignore the trend shown by the 6,000 boreholes around the globe. Definitely a rabid believer. You should really save that for your church.

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 2:51 PM

Not picking a region when I give you a global study.

Denis Ables
May 14, 2016 at 2:58 PM

Two major global studies is NOT a region. Adding further confirming data, determined by eyeball, from another region or possibly two, is certainly acceptable.

But, let’s go back to the evidence for your belief/non-alarm.

Denis Ables
May 12, 2016 at 9:56 AM

“picking and choosing….” glaciers ! Ridiculous. That is the most laughable way of denying what your eyes are seeing……. that 1,000 years ago trees were growing in Alaska at a northern latitude well beyond where trees grow today. Obviously the MWP trend was showing itself elsewhere, as confirmed by numerous peer-reviewed studies (available via co2science.org) and 6,000 boreholes.

cshorey
May 12, 2016 at 10:56 PM

Yep, how do you propose to remove bias from a true mass balance study (and not a short sighted analysis of glacier front advance and retreat) of all the glaciers of the world? I already know, you cherry pick the glaciers that tell the story you already decided on. That’s not science, that’s religion.

Denis Ables
May 12, 2016 at 11:43 PM

So, what are you saying? That you’re only ready to admit there’s evidence if (1) every glacier is retreating, and (2) every glacier is exposing splintered trees…….?

Lame, really lame.

cshorey
May 13, 2016 at 12:28 AM

You can’t read?

Denis Ables
May 13, 2016 at 11:09 AM

YOu really don’t understand the difference between religion and science. If, tomorrow, there is a credible report that in both cases the tree was uprooted from some point sufficiently further south to debunk the earlier understanding, I would have no problem acknowledging that.

Besides, the earlier interpretation merely contributed to confirmation of what was already well known — NUMEROUS peer-reviewed studies (data and process available to skeptics) all available via co2science.org and 6,000 boreholes around the globe (and not just from ice cores) demonstrating that the MWP was a global trend.

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 2:48 PM

“You alarmists”. What have I said so far that was “alarmism”. I just point out how bad your arguments are. And your opening volley there was ignorant and drifting off topic again. How many times do I have to tell you the PAGES overview is my evidence that MWP was not a significantly warmer time than today by any stretch of the imagination.

You may in fact not be at all alarmed about what you believe, and neither would I or any skeptics, if the government was not attempting to justify allocation of scarce resources to address that very same belief.

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 3:17 PM

So the burden of proof is on the one agreeing with current scientific evidence and consensus? Anyway, you argue that I am dupped, brainwashed, or just a flat out liar because of MWP boreholes or something. I give you a post of a lot of evidence. I give you a PAGES study. I give and I give Denis. Please take the time to look into these things. I constantly question if I’m on the right track in climate science, because it is tremendously complicated. But through that I have learned enough to know a bad argument when I see one.

Denis Ables
May 14, 2016 at 3:26 PM

The “burden of proof” is ALWAYs on the author’s (and/or believers) in the hypothesis. Science demands that! What did you say your education level was?

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 3:49 PM

And there’s your misunderstanding. I don’t believe in what I’m saying. I follow the evidence to it’s logical conclusions. That’s why I agree with most of my true climatology colleagues who say the climate is warming, and humans are influencing through greenhouse gas emissions. Your 123 list is like attempting to be a mind reader. You are right. I refuse to acknowledge that CO2science.org is a reputable source. You just said it yourself, follow the money, “According to IRS records, the ExxonMobil Foundation provided a grant of $15,000 to the center in 2000.[3] Another report states that ExxonMobil has funded an additional $55,000 to the center.[4]”
The Idso’s generally harp on CO2 fertilizer effect, but don’t note the experiments that higher CO2 preferentially helps weeds and invasive species of native crop species, or that the PETM not only saw a boost in vegetation in response to CO2 loading, but an increase in inspect damage, or that you can have all the CO2 you want, but without water, or other limiting nutrients, it doesn’t mean a thing. You have have all the CO2 you want, but if the NPK isn’t there, it’s not what the Idso’s describe. They also ignore changing weather patterns like the amplification of the Jet Stream as it slows its tracking and thus producing more blocking highs that result in stuck wave patterns with preferential flooding on the trough and drought on the ridge.
Like I said, I found Joanne Nova’s site, and then found problems with it. Follow my previous link for you.

Denis Ables
May 14, 2016 at 4:06 PM

Idso didn’t do any of those peer-reviewed studies (40+countries representing 100s, if not 1000s of investigators from various organizations). He just provides the links. Denying those links is like denying the library because the librarian is a right (or left) winger! It’s an excuse to be lazy.

Let’s suppose that Idso has NOT kept even one study that conflicted with his skeptical point of view, so wouldn’t support your claim. That means that EVERY study he does show (and there are over a thousand, as I recall, and spanning a couple of decades, and still coming in regularly) shows (via peer-review) that the MWP was global and as warm, likely warmer than now.

In that case, you’d have to find a similar number of studies showing that the MWP was not global. But it’d be even harder, because not every study shows anything, and we know that even global phenomenon can skip a region or two. You’d have a tough road to hoe, my friend.

Would you care to tell me what “problems” you found?
All I recall is that boreholes do not typically provide the best temperature accuracy; however, they do, in aggregate clearly show the MWP trend.
.

cshorey
May 16, 2016 at 12:16 AM

I didn’t deny any specific link, but actually explained before you made this post that such cherry picking (yes here that logical fallacy comes up again) of peer reviewed literature is misleading. You can show me plenty of studies that more CO2 in a controlled single species experiment results in greater growth. I explained the pest, weed, and invasive species problems with this argument. If you don’t include those studies, you don’t tell the whole truth. The Idso’s can tell the truth and still not tell the whole truth, and that becomes a problem in their reputations.

Those who don’t understand the basic physics and chemistry, or willfuly ignore it, have put up a variety of alternative hypotheses – cosmic rays, orbit, solar, there’s even http://cosy.com/Science/ClimateWiki/Category%20Essential_Physics.htm . However, the acolytes haven’t been able to do what science does: provide a substantive body of evidence, a history of research supporting any of the alternative hypotheses.

Denis Ables
May 17, 2016 at 1:15 PM

I haven’t bothered to check for earlier responses (if any), Robert, but it appears that “acolytes” is your descriptor for skeptics.

Since you are likely a believer, this implies that you go along with the IPCC claim that human activity is the PRINCIPLE cause of global warming. If so, perhaps you could provide the evidence for that belief for those “who don’t understand basic physics and chemistry”. Don’t chase us around to various weblinks— in your own words please.

There is also the consilience from multiple lines of evidence ( http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ ), though we could also refer again to the IPCC reports and summaries.

Note also that in that nearly two centuries of scientific research, there have been several alternative hypotheses – clouds, water vapor, cosmic rays, volcanoes, supernatural beings, orbit – but no substantive body of research has been developed.

Denis Ables
May 17, 2016 at 2:21 PM

NASA and NOAA have lost any semblance of credibility insofar as climate research. They have been claiming each year “hottest” when, in fact, the difference between annual temperatures in recent years is MINISCULE – well within the uncertainty error. ANY scientist knows better, so it’s likely the politicl hacks talking.

Both NASA and NOAA use only terrestrial data. They both IGNORE information from our two weather satellites! Terrestrial data has many problems. Most surface temperature stations do not even pass government minimal requirements. There are few if any weather stations in numerous large areas, including forests, grasslands, jungles, deserts, and other uninhabited regions. Most surface stations are located with urban heat islands. (which, by definition provide biased data). So the raw data must be discarded and replaced by ESTIMATES which (supposedly) remove the UHI bias. The revised data is often DUBIOUS.

NOAA has recently re-introduced old shipboard SST data which has a known temperature bias, and was some time ago replaced by 3,000 ARGO buoys to specifically provide better data. These kinds of actions are FRAUDULENT.

Robert
May 17, 2016 at 2:25 PM

” They both IGNORE information from our two weather satellites! “

Denis Ables
May 17, 2016 at 2:33 PM

Actually, that’s not accurate. I know that they KNOW, but they refuse to acknowledge that both weather satellites show no additional warming for the past 18+ years, and that takes into consideration an El Nino which started in mid 2015.

Any credible scientific organization would acknowledge that some of the other available data conflicts with their data. (Alarmists treat the MWP the same way. They attempted to brush it away (with no justification) that the MWP was merely regional.

I’m not intending to waste much more time with your bloviation and digressions. Come up with some facts, in your own words, don’t try to waste reader’s time chasing around the web. If you can’t do that, admit it.

Robert
May 17, 2016 at 3:30 PM

Again, lots of babble. And no supporting evidence.
And, weren’t you the one wanting to argue the science?

I like the added “additional”…

Robert
May 17, 2016 at 3:44 PM

Any possiblits we’ll see some sources for that?
“I know that they KNOW, but they refuse to acknowledge that both weather satellites …”

Robert
May 17, 2016 at 2:29 PM

Your last para makes no sense. Two different datasets, timeframes. Well established science. You are not bringing any actual sources forward that supports your assertions.

Denis Ables
May 17, 2016 at 2:46 PM

Definitely two different datasets, one is bogus (ship intake), the other is the ARGO buoys. Shipboard intake data is outdated and includes a warming bias, and had been discarded in favor of 3,000 ARGO buoys later introduced (which provide more accurate data and more than just sea surface temperature.) Very recently NOAA casually reintroduced the known biased shipboard intake data.What part don’t you understand?

Keep in mind that credible skeptics are flexible – willing to change their mind, whatever, if the facts are there. Alarmists, on the other hand, are hooked into their agenda (be it $$, or political) and fully intend to protect their egos, whatever the cost.

Last chance. Give me some justification for your lame beliefs, or I’ll pursue more constructive activities.

Robert
May 17, 2016 at 3:25 PM

I have no idea what sources you used to inform your thinking, and it seems rather odd you’d label them derogatoryly as “skeptic” since that is the essence of scientific inquiry.

Denis Ables
May 17, 2016 at 3:31 PM

Not all “skeptics”, in my view, qualify as credible skeptics. Most of the “true believers” don’t understand the science, and couldn’t care less. All they want to do is yak about politics. These involve not only liberals, which in this case happen to believe that bigger government is better, and surely Obama must be right. It also involves many conservatives who suspect government (a healthier position) and (in this case, only by accident) they happen to be on the right side of the science.

Robert
May 17, 2016 at 4:00 PM

So, be skeptical. Show us the research you read. Explain how and why it is valid.

Basic resource evaluation. Taught to 6th graders.

Robert
May 17, 2016 at 3:27 PM

“What part don’t you understand?”
The part where you make unsupported claims, refuse to cite what sources informed your thinking, then flounce off stage left in a huff when politely asked for them.

Denis Ables
May 17, 2016 at 3:34 PM

“unsupported claims”? You have defined “support” as “biased” because it conflicts with your true beliefs, which, as you’ve adequately demonstrated, you cannot justify.

Sorry, not worth anymore time.

Robert
May 17, 2016 at 3:52 PM

Where? Quote and cite:
“You have defined “support” as “biased” …”

Robert
May 17, 2016 at 3:42 PM

“includes a warming bias, ”
And just like the sat data, you adjust for it.
Just like your oven therm or dial….

Robert
May 17, 2016 at 2:32 PM

Name some : “ANY scientist knows better, “

Robert
May 17, 2016 at 2:33 PM

Who has informed you of this. : “The revised data is often DUBIOUS.”

Robert
May 17, 2016 at 2:35 PM

See C. Hitchens.
And
C. Sagan
“NASA and NOAA have lost any semblance of credibility insofar as climate research.”

Robert
May 17, 2016 at 2:37 PM

I’d say, that without some strong corroborated evidence, you are talking through your hat.
“So the raw data must be discarded and replaced by ESTIMATES ”
Though hat may be a kinder, gentler, word.

Denis Ables
May 17, 2016 at 2:47 PM

It’s not difficult to determine that. I’ll leave it as your exercise.

g’bye

Robert
May 17, 2016 at 3:21 PM

So. No evidence.

See C Sagan
See C. Hitchens
Re: no evidence, assertions, and rejecting such.
Quotes upon request.

Denis Ables
May 17, 2016 at 3:24 PM

You’ve got to be kidding!

Robert
May 17, 2016 at 4:03 PM

Nope. Do you see any cited evidence in your diatribes?

Denis Ables
May 17, 2016 at 3:04 PM

You have a LOT to learn. Human activity obviously has an impact within urban heat islands. Surely you know that much. But, the rural areas surrounding UHIs show no impact, so it’s obvious that the UHI impact (where most of the temperature stations are located) must be removed.

But, the UHI impact is quite significant, and that influence varies with every weather station in the UHI, so must be eliminated from the raw temperature data.

Robert
May 17, 2016 at 3:17 PM

Let us know when you have a substantive body of published research supporting your claims.

Denis Ables
May 17, 2016 at 3:23 PM

I provided you with 1,000 + peer-reviewed studies, involving 40 countries and 100s of organizations and investigators. But, since those links all happen to be on co2science.org site, you IGNORE them. Why would I bother to give you any references? What you’re claiming is that anything which conflicts with your beliefs has to be influenced by fossil fuel. I went the extra step, mentioning 6,000 boreholes which confirm the links provided by co2science, and also mentioned eyeball evidence about trees and vineyards which no longer grow at their northern latitude locations (and the dated remains show that it was obviously warmer way back when than now. (which current computer modeling can’t reconcile.

It hasn’t even registered on your little mind, obviously.

And, note readers, that “Robert” also cannot justify his position – belief.
(Does that not sound like a “true believer”, and how is that different from a religious zealot?)

Robert
May 17, 2016 at 4:04 PM

Which post to me did you link to that source?

Denis Ables
May 17, 2016 at 5:06 PM

co2science.org. On the other stuff you’ll have to do your own google search.

Do you think by refusing to provide justification for your belief you get you a pass? Nope. FAIL.

Robert
May 17, 2016 at 5:28 PM

Not close to the correct answer. Try again:
Which post to me did you link to that source?

jmac
May 18, 2016 at 9:21 AM

The very best way of gaining knowledge is ignoring the actual science (the peer reviewed studies are for sissies and takes time away from my chest thumping about how smart I am), and instead heading right to the right wing denier blogs and listening to fox news and Rush Limbaugh 24/7. They interpret that stuff for me. If you can’t explain it in 140 characters or less, I’m out of there.

Just like the other day. When scientists announced the discovery of water on Mars recently, Rush Limbaugh drew the obvious conclusion: It was all part of a conspiratorial plot. See easy! I’m all informed up.—… signed Denis Ables

/snark I kid, I kid, not really true, do not try this at home 🙂

Robert
May 18, 2016 at 9:28 AM

You are spending too much effort on these guys. We are spending too much…

jmac
May 18, 2016 at 11:05 AM

??

Robert
May 18, 2016 at 11:29 AM

We’d make more of a difference by writing letters to the editor. Before tom harris, not as a response.

Or getting arrested at Anacortes, et al.

jmac
May 18, 2016 at 9:15 AM

#facepalm co2science? funded by Heartland Institute?

Now here is to a point about sources.

It doesn’t matter who the people or sources are, whether they are a publishing climate scientist or a non publishing non climate scientist who is employed by the fossil fuel industry or a right wing think tank or some nutter like whoever. All opinions are Equal and therefore Balanced. I learned that watching Fox news. 🙂 As a matter of fact, I get most of my medical advice from my car mechanic who has never had cancer a single day in his life. /sarc

Denis Ables
May 18, 2016 at 10:51 AM

In the real world, how do you decide who is credible? For example the “97% consensus” (which should surely be credible turns out to be a completely bogus survey. The first provided ambiguous questions, where even credible skeptics response would also be counted. But it was worse. Those “surveyors” sent out queries to 10,000 respondents. They received relatively few responses (which imply that most didn’t feel it was important, probably) and then the FILTERED that down to 77 or 79 (I forget which) a real NO-NO, which requires considerable justification (not provided). And, it turns out that the filter wasn’t perfect. 2 out of the 77 (or 79) were categorized as deniers. The result: a 97% consensus. The UN received a petition signed by about 1,000 skeptics, but whose counting?

The send bogus attempt at generating a 97% consensus was an automated analysis of many climate related studies. The presence of key words determined whether the author was part of the needed “consensus” . But this one picked up many skeptics.

As yourself: Why are these folks devoting so much time to trying to shut down skeptics by claiming the science is settled (never is) rather than just stating “Here’s the evidence…”?

Those who do claim to have evidence have provided nothing but bloviation and obfuscation. These idiots initially even blamed increasing sea level on co2 increase until it became publicly obvious that the sea level has been increasing since the last full blown ice age BEGAN melting (about 12,000 years ago).

These are the same folks who now insist that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was merely regional. But there are numerous studies (many done before this “climate change” debate really cranked up). These studies continue to flow in even now and are also confirmed by 6,000 boreholes around the globe, and various exposures by receding glaciers of trees (and ancient vineyards) at latitudes where neither species can now grow.

In science it is incumbent upon the “owner” of any hypothesis to provide evidence to back up their position. Claiming that the MWP is regional requires a global wide investigation (already done) to back that up. Claiming that 1,000 peer-reviewed studies (and growing) are all “biased” because the studies are listed by co2science.org (Dr. Idso is obviously one of the “deniers”) is ludicrous. If the warministas actually believe that, they should at least be concerned (if credible) and get moving on doing the necessary work. (Unfortunately for them, it’s long since been done and conflicts with their cult-like belief.)

There is also the fact that there is no empirical evidence that co2 level has EVER (even over geologic periods, when co2 level was much higher – 2,000+ppmv) had any impact on our planet’s temperature.

jmac
May 18, 2016 at 11:00 AM

Evidence Denis, evidence. See the Age of Enlightenment.

Denis Ables
May 18, 2016 at 11:55 AM

Oh please. I can send you all over the web too. If you have something useful to contribute, do it. else devote that time to contemplating your belly-button jmac

jmac
May 18, 2016 at 12:11 PM

And yet still no evidence of your conspiracy tales.

For the right wing deniers, nearly all advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The only thing that makes sense to them is to return us to the years before the Age of Enlightenment. Make Merica great again.

Denis Ables
May 18, 2016 at 1:57 PM

I’m not particularly interested in “conspiracy tales”. However, I do think the alarmist attitude will make the next addition of that book “The Madness of Crowds…”,

I’m arguing the SCIENCE. Since you can’t seem to tell the difference, I don’t think further discussion with you is worthwhile.

.. and you automatically think all skeptics are “right-wingers”? That is probably true because (even without the science issue) most right-wingers are, by definition, skeptical about big government (and that’s a healthy attitude which even mainstream media should have adopted.)

jmac
May 18, 2016 at 2:06 PM

BS! Science deals in evidence. Here, get some.

There are multiple lines of evidence of man made climate change. You can start learning here.

An overview from the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences

Climate Change Evidence & Causes

CLIMATE CHANGE IS ONE OF THE DEFINING ISSUES OF OUR TIME. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and other climate-related changes.

I’ve provided plenty of evidence on this web discussion. You needn’t chase any links. Your links go to NASA which, like NOVA is acting as a government shill. These are the same folks who have been jumping up and down about the recent “hottest” year, when any real scientist knows that the annual difference among recent recent years is miniscule – well within the uncertainty error, so of no consequence.

Keep in mind that the directors of these agencies are appointed, so political, and you can be sure their PR office will lip-synch Obama’s ludicrous claims.

jmac
May 18, 2016 at 2:22 PM

BS. Nobody has seen your peer reviewed scientific evidence. Just your BS. You are a joke.

“2015 Unambiguously the Hottest Year on Record… 2015 set the record with 99.996% confidence.”

You don’t seem to understand that the difference between 2015 and the next few “hottest” are miniscule – well within the uncertainty error. This is merely spin you poor fool.

Here’s another great example of “authority”. Obama recently visited Alaska and pointed at a couple of nearby receding glaciers and inferred this was “cliamte change” (which means, by alarmist definition, “human caused global warming”) He neglected to mention that there are other Alaskan glaciers, which are growing, or that it was not unusual during the warm stretch between ice ages to see both advancing and receding glaciers. What’s really funny is that one of the two receding glaciers, “Exit” by name, has been receding since the early 1700s. In other words, long before co2 began increasing, and long before our industrial revolution. Now, there’s some REAL B.S.

Continue following that “leader” and you’ll soon be walking off a cliff (if not already).

jmac
May 18, 2016 at 3:41 PM

More peer reviewed science and less BS please.
Conspiracy nuts like you have it easy. They can say whatever they want without having to back it up with silly things like “evidence” or “facts”.

Denis Ables
May 18, 2016 at 3:44 PM

“more peer-reviewed science”. Did you not understand that there are already 1,000+ peer-reviewed studies of MWP temperature? It sounds as if you’re the “conspiracy nut” if you reject that.

jmac
May 18, 2016 at 3:52 PM

Show us what you got or STFU and go back to your right wing denier blogs where they appreciate conspiracy tales.

Denis Ables
May 18, 2016 at 4:11 PM

I did, on this very blog, but it evidently blew right past you!

jmac
May 19, 2016 at 10:45 AM

Evidently. Where? Anybody else see it?

Robert
May 19, 2016 at 12:20 PM

Somewhere there is a link to cotwoseance, or wtfuwt, or climderp….

Denis Ables
May 18, 2016 at 4:13 PM

That has already been done, and no need to chase around web links….or you can look at Adrian Vance commentary on this same blog. WHERE have you been?

co2science.org. How about providing some peer-reviewed studies justifying the alarmist claim that the MWP was NOT a global event? (That will be a bit difficult to find, given the 1,000+ peer reviewed studies which demonstrate it is a LIE !)

jmac
May 19, 2016 at 11:12 AM

#facepalm co2science, well that explains it then. LOL

According to internal documents from the Heartland Institute, Craig Idso (co2science) appears to receive $11,600 a month from the Heartland Institute through his Center for the Study of CO2 & Global Change.

So, what? The studies were all peer-reviewed and done by 40+ countries and organizations, independent of Idso. His site merely provides a librarian function, namely links to those peer-reviewed studies. The worst you can claim is that Idso only has links to studies which confirm his opinion (not true), but let’s assume that. So what? It still shows that the claims (without justification by the alarmists) that the MWP is regional is BOGUS.

The reason alarmists must continue to lie about that is it would be embarassing to admit that it’s been warmer than now in the past (which these studies show).

You refer to one or two claims, as opposed to 1,000+ ?

jmac
May 19, 2016 at 12:06 PM

So you say, which means bumpkus. Meanwhile, still no peer reviewed evidence from you.

Denis Ables
May 19, 2016 at 12:13 PM

So you claim that investigators and organizations from 40+ countries providing peer-reviewed studies over the last couple of decades is “bumpkus”, but somehow, your links are the only valid ones. HMMMM. Definitely smacks of cult-like belief.

Sweet baby jeebus. You are whiffing badly. More of your Gish Gallop.
Which says:

None of the reconstructions show MWP peak temperatures as high as late 20th century temperatures, consistent with the conclusions of both National Research Council [2006] and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [2007] about the warmth of the MWP.

Denis Ables
May 19, 2016 at 12:11 PM

“Gish Gallop” on MWP. LOL (All alarmists (aka liberals) can do is assign a name to anything that conflicts with their beliefs, and then hope that issue goes away.)

In addition to those 1,000+ studies, the global MWP trend is also shown by 6,000 boreholes.

And how do you explain the recently exposed (Mendenhall glacier, Alaska) tree trunk, standing in its original position (pictures were all over the internet, among other places). The tree was dated 1,000 years old. It was obviously warmer in Alaska during the MWP (It takes a while for that tree to grow) which already refutes the alarmist claim. There was a similar happening in the Alps, but those trees were dated 4,000 years old.

jmac
May 19, 2016 at 12:23 PM

More time wasting spam of BS denier memes . You deluded whackjobs are behaving like 2 year olds still parroting and spamming thousand-times-falsified old right wing myths, memes and conspiracies and using many of the same right wing think tanks that were used to deny the dangers of tobacco.

Meanwhile the effects and evidence of climate change are simply an obvious everyday reality all over the world.

There are multiple lines of evidence of man made climate change. You can start learning here.

An overview from the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences

Climate Change Evidence & Causes

CLIMATE CHANGE IS ONE OF THE DEFINING ISSUES OF OUR TIME. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and other climate-related changes.

Still DENYing the 1,000+ peer-reviewed studies available via links provided by co2science.org?

jmac
May 20, 2016 at 9:17 AM

Still denying you’ve posted any links to them. Sure.

Denis Ables
May 20, 2016 at 9:26 AM

Once again. co2science.org is the convenient library If you go there you can get as many of the links as you’re likely to want.

By the way, a necessary (but not sufficient) condition attached to the AGW theory is that there must be a warmer spot (a “hot spot”) in the troposphere. Despite millions of radiosondes (weather balloon measurements) over several years it has not been found. Do you understand the implications ?

jmac
May 20, 2016 at 9:32 AM

It’s very strange that a person’s Authority for Science is a right wing denier blogs interpretaion. It’s as though they don’t want to know what the actual scientist studying the thing are saying.

How did this come to be, did you just decide in 4th grade science class that this science stuff is too difficult and you are just gonna start watching Fox and right wing denier blogs 24/7 to interpret it and give it to you in a 140 characters or less?

Denis Ables
May 20, 2016 at 8:50 PM

You’re now going from bloviation to distraction. Keep believing, if that makes you feel better.

I enjoy science, but there’s lots of p;roblems in today’s science. Climate Science is run by dollars and politics (not necessarily in that order.)

But I see issues in medical science (run by big Pharma & big Medicine

And the cosmologists in control are just as bad, but it’s mostly ego there. These folks have assumed that gravity is the defining power across the universe and that the red shift from across the universe can be interpreted the same as it is locally. Look where that’s led:
1. dark matter
2. dark energy
3. expanding space (to avoid conflict with speed of light constraint

jmac
May 21, 2016 at 7:59 AM

Thanks for sharing. /sarc Bye. 🙂

Robert
May 21, 2016 at 10:17 AM

She’s smarter than s. Hawkins? And the CERN boffins? And all those post doc fellowship holders in every field?
And she’s sharing it here on a comment thread….

Who’dathunk….

jmac
May 21, 2016 at 10:42 AM

LOL. She does do a lot of blowing about without a shred of credible science to support her windy’s. 🙂

Popteck. Or Morano. Or co2seance. That is why there is so much overwhelming evidence that Denis A. won’t cite a source.

Why the switch from glacier to mwp, I wonder….?

jmac
May 19, 2016 at 11:52 AM

No doubt. And the switch is because he is whiffing and being called on it?

Robert
May 19, 2016 at 11:57 AM

Most likely.
And another denialist poster who hides behind the “Deal with it”
Wonder why… wonder what the excuse would be. Wonder what the real reason is.

jmac
May 19, 2016 at 12:02 PM

It’s very strange that a person’s Authority for Science is a right wing denier blogs interpretaion. It’s as though they don’t want to know what the actual scientist studying the thing are saying.

Maybe some folks just decide in 4th grade science class that this science stuff is too difficult and they are just going to start watching Fox and right wing denier blogs 24/7 to interpret this science stuff and give it to them in140 characters or less?

Robert
May 19, 2016 at 1:26 PM

Not wanting to take basic responsibly for what comes out of our tailpipes….. to borrow a well known phrase , an inconvenient truth.

Robert
May 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM

Please show us your best research re: net # glaciers receding v advancing. And net gains and losses of volume, extent.
Heck, give us your best research on anything related to the subject of what we are doing to our environment by the profligate burning of fossil fuels.

Denis Ables
May 18, 2016 at 2:18 PM

The Russian Academy of Science happens to agree with the skeptics. What you fail to understand is that arguments defaulting to references to “authority” hold no water when it is “authority” which is in question.

So, let’s see: you don’t understand the science and neither do you understand straightforward argumentative protocol.

jmac
May 18, 2016 at 2:23 PM

LOL. Putin runs the Russian Academy nitwit.
You are a joke.

Denis Ables
May 18, 2016 at 3:31 PM

Look in a mirror stupid. How is that different from OBama and his minions?

Russia did apparently hold back on making that claim public until it was clear to Putin that there was no “rebate” from the potential carbon taxes.

The sound we’re hearing is the tinfoil being ripped from the roll…
” all skeptics are “right-wingers”? That is probably true because (even without the science issue) most right-wingers are, by definition, skeptical about big government “

Robert
May 19, 2016 at 12:23 PM

Well, it gets better and better…
“There is no empirical evidence showing that co2 has EVER (even over geologic periods) had any impact on our climate’s temperature, a”

Oh sweet baby jeebus. The guy is a serial liar with a loaded quiver of BS from right wing denier blogs and Adrian Vance. 🙂

Robert
May 19, 2016 at 1:20 PM

Yes quite the pieces of work.
And by work, well it is hard to copy paste from science free blogs.

Bart_R
May 17, 2016 at 3:24 PM

First, there are more than two ‘weather’ satellites.

Perhaps you mean global temperature reconstructions from the two better known sources, UAH and RSS.

Well, UAH is up to Version 6.0 beta 5; RSS has moved to Version 4.0. Both of these datasets produced by calibrating observations to locations with greater accuracy now closely match the most accurate of the global land-ocean surface temperature records.

BEST has evaluated claims of too few or badly placed surface stations, and proven conclusively that these claims are false on fact. The last time urban heat islands were even detectable above the effect of the CO2 GHE was the 1950s, the same as the last time solar influences were detectable. Further, BEST has confirmed Cowtan & Way’s analyses, that where there is sparse weather station (surface) or satellite coverage, this tends to understate the actual warming since the most remote places are also the most rapidly warming.

Now, BEST’s Robert Rohde has pointed out that the accuracy of the most recent datasets is 0.005 C, while the warmest year on record only broke the record by 0.001 C above 2005 and 2010. And Rohde goes so far as to suggest that this indicates how ‘flat’ the temperature trend is. However, warmest year records don’t typically fall every five years, historically. Getting a new warmest year contender closer together than a decade was startling, just a few decades ago. And before the 1980s, for it to happen twice in the same quarter century was remarkable. So Rohde’s characterization of ‘flat’ trend is simply absurd. Global warming isn’t measured by single year-to-year comparisons, but rather comparisons that meaningfully compare climates, which takes accumulation of at least 17 years to be 95% confident of the trend. And the 17 year trends are sharply spiked upwards, and have been increasingly so in general over the last half century. 30 year trends are purely rising over the same period.

Fraudulent is a technical term in law. Either provide the court case where you say this fraud was found by a judge, or be known as a simple liar.

Robert
May 17, 2016 at 2:01 PM

That would be a kinder, gentler, but somewhat inaccurate word choice. “..descriptor for skeptics”

“Hold exact claims inferred from all we note assuming least, excepting least and linking by logic like parts of like things most possible (but no further than possible*) until new note need amended or new claim — Isaac Newton, Philosophia 1714, *amended Albert Einstein 1914.”

CO2Science.org does none of that. I shook the dust of that borehole of false claims after finding the number of citations they made that drew the opposite conclusions of what the authors stated exceeded the number of honest citations by ten to one. Using the Idsos to reprocess first hand scholarship is an exercise in spin and propaganda.

This name-calling and reliance on misinformation.. you’re aware those are dishonest, right?

Denis Ables
May 13, 2016 at 3:56 PM

Statistical nonsense.

jreb57
May 14, 2016 at 1:06 PM

“When all glaciers are growing we’ll likely be into our next ice age”
Isn’t that what many climatologist were saying 30 years ago? Wonder if cshorey was one of them..

Denis Ables
May 14, 2016 at 1:19 PM

I don’t think their claim was conditional. That claim was certainly more justified than the current AGW claim. Here they were, near the end of a mild cooling period (mid 70s) and over the past 1.3 million years there have been 13 ice ages, average duration 90,000 years, each followed by a warming period, average duration 10,000 years. It was time (give or take a few thousand years).

jreb57
May 15, 2016 at 8:17 PM

I think the current AGW claim regarding catastrophic climate change is BS. It contradicts physical laws concerning the conservation of energy which are well understood. If the claims being made were correct, CO2 would be our new energy source. It takes a lot of energy to increase the temperature of the planet even 1 degree.

Climate variations wobble around all over the place as mother nature varies considerably. Look up Malenkovich Cycles and you will get the picture.

Denis Ables
May 14, 2016 at 3:42 PM

That’s true, but the “wobbles” often don’t hide the real trend. Take a look at the 12,000 year graph of sea level, for example. (and while looking at it, think about how ludicrous it is to carry on about the current rate of rise (a couple of millimeters per year).

Much of what you cite as “peer reviewed” is the product of garage and basement publishers where the major source of income is what the authors pay to be published as they are required to buy 100 to 1000 copies the journals in which their pieces appear. This has long been a corrupt leg of the publishing business.

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 2:50 PM

So all climate science is “pal review” and it’s a giant conspiracy that apparently no climate scientists have ever been asked to join. Oh, do tell me more.

The Medieval warming has been well-documented and only questioned by those seeking to blame mankind for a problem that does not exist. In fact we should be burning more stuff as there is a severe shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Just ask the green plants as they have to expend much energy to capture it. Carbon is 42% of all green plant dry mass.

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 3:56 PM

The MWP has been overemphasized by those who think it shows equal warming to today for the same reasons. It is not as warm globally as today, and we know it was a period of higher solar activity. We are not in a period of higher solar activity today, and solar would cause the troposphere and stratosphere to warm, but greenhouse warming only warms the troposphere while cooling the stratosphere. Over the last few decades we have observed a warming of the troposphere and a cooling of the stratosphere.
Your CO2 plant food argument ignore the devil in the details (limiting nutrients and water, increased insect pests, weedy and invasive species outcompeting native).

Oddly enough, people who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism consistently belittle any mention that the sun can possibly have any significant effect in climate change – until they need to invoke the sun to explain climate change, AS YOU JUST DID.

You can’t have it both ways. Either the sun DOES play a significant role in climate change, as you just admitted, or it does not.

What is obvious to anyone with any critical thinking skills is that a gas that is only present at a concentration of 400 ppmv (essentially 4 molecules per 10,000), which interacts with IR radiation over very tiny ranges of the total spectrum, cannot possibly exert a controlling influence on the atmosphere, oceans or really much of anything – but satellites show it DOES help the biosphere, contrary to the alarmist claims of those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism!

cshorey
July 26, 2016 at 2:40 PM

And this is your admission that you have no explanation for the PETM and the post-Carboniferous ice house. Not that I needed more proof that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Now, try to wrap your head around those two paleoclimate events and try to figure out why they demolish your fantasy that CO2 always follows T. It clearly isn’t today.

First, that is a fantasy, as I already pointed out, but it is not mine because I never said it, YOU DID, so that makes it YOUR fantasy.

What I said, and I am tired of repeating myself, that if you review the record you find that temperature USUALLY rises first then, some time later, CO2 rises AND THIS IS WHAT WE ARE SEEING NOW as the people who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism have finally admitted that the surface IS NOT warming catastrophically as predicted – rather now they have switched to claims the oceans are warming – and let’s go with that claim to see the logical consequences:

Assume it is correct and the oceans are warming.

Then by Henry’s Law, as the oceans warm, the dissolved CO2 becomes less soluble and some is driven out as a result, leading to a measured increase in atmospheric CO2.

BY JOVE I think you figured out where the observed STEADY increase in atmospheric CO2, which in no way matches the irregular increases and decreases of human CO2 production which have occurred over the last 3 or 4 decades, is coming from! As the planet slowly, steadily, NATURALLY warms, and this warming is apparently happening in the oceans (even though no valid evidence showing this ocean warming is yet in hand), this would actually explain where the CO2 that is driving the observed increase in the atmospheric ppmv measurements is coming from!

To reiterate – I am not the one who claims CO2 ALWAYS follows T but I did point out it did so what, 16 times, that we know of, in the past. So there were two exceptions. I don’t claim to know why. But the ratio is still 16:2 or 8:1 so the evidence still suggests that IF there is a cause and effect relationship going on, temperature, being the usual leader, is the cause and CO2 increasing is the effect – and I’ve provided a POSSIBLE mechanism to explain this as well.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 3:16 AM

What’s annoying is that I bet you can’t give me one ripped quote from the “ClimateGate scenario” that actually shows any wrong doing by the climate scientists. And that you just throw out opinions as facts, thats’ annoying too.

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 1:23 PM

So you think “there is no convection across firm greenhouse boundaries, and satellites detect heat escaping to space” are merely my “opinion”, and not fact?

You think the quote from Phil Jones is “opinion” and not fact? (His comment was subsequent to, not part of ClimateGate, but probably brought on by that.) Ask Phil.

cshorey
May 12, 2016 at 10:48 PM

Ignore the request and Gish Gallop. Fail again.

Denis Ables
May 12, 2016 at 11:38 PM

Readers: Please note that I, as a skeptic, have nothing to prove. I am asking for alarmists to provide evidence (they obviously have none) and demonstrating that there are facts also conflicting with their claims (which they deny).

“Ghish” actually is basically a descriptor meaning “overwhelming facts”. Alarmists try to use that as a saracastic rebuttal. (They think that’s better than “gosh… there are so many facts to deal with ….”

cshorey
May 13, 2016 at 12:23 AM

Hardly anyone is reading this but you and I. I use CFACT for practice and keeping my thumb on the crazy. Evidence. Hmm. You can’t find any? Wow. That doesn’t bode well for your research abilities. First piece of evidence, satellites have measured an energy imbalance at the top of our atmosphere (Santer et al., 2009), and the first law of thermodynamics holds. Where do you think the retained energy comes from? Don’t answer, it would waste all our time.
Second piece of evidence: predictive evidence. Arrhenius predicted CO2 would lead and H2O could only follow as a feedback and that has been observed. Calendar predicted nights would warm more than days; observed. He predicted that the winter would warm faster than the summers; observed. He predicted that the Arctic would warm faster than any other region; observed. He predicted that the center of Antarctica would gain ice as the world started to warm from greenhouse forcing. Oh, and Hansen’s 1988 congressional model gave three scenarios for the future. Of course dishonest CFACT type fellow Pat Michaels came back saying that Hansen missed it and overestimated T increase, but he did that by only looking at the worst case scenario, when Hansen himself said the middle range was more likely. Guess what, middle scenario has followed up to present day T.
Third piece of evidence: (don’t worry, I know your head is already spinning how to spin all this evidence you say doesn’t exist and never comes forward when you “ask”). Retroactive aspects, if we run models that only run the natural causes, they retrodict avg surface T fine up to 1980, and then go too low. If you add the human influenced greenhouse effect in, you see it fits much better after the 1980’s. In other words, AGW pulled out of natural background influences in the 1980’s, and you can’t explain the avg surface T since the 1980’s unless you do bring AGW in.
Fourth piece of evidence: and let me pause here to say you will probably cherry pick one thing in all this to try to show some error, but ignore the totality of all the evidence I’m presenting your sorry soul. There is not only global studies, but regional studies have been done, and the same retrodictive studies also find you need to bring in the human influence after the 1980’s or the models don’t balance.
Fifth piece of evidence: fingerprinting. Beyond the greatest T differentials getting the most influence (night and winter) we also have seen a robust outcome of all climate models since Smagorinsky and Manabe in the 70’s; a warming of the troposphere, and a cooling of the stratosphere. That too has been observed since the predictions were made.
Fifth piece: feeling sorry you asked yet, or are your rose colored glasses that thick? If we warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere we should see a rising altitude of the tropopause. Guess what? Observed (Santer et. al. 2011)
Let’s pause to note that you nut jobs love to say peer review is pal review, but what do you have as a substitute. “I went to Watt’s Up With That”. Pathetic.
Sixth piece: Oceans are warming too. You lovely people love to say that it hasn’t warmed in x years. Just keep ignoring the ARGOS data that shows oceans warming, especially below 2000m, and that over 90% of the heat imbalance that has been measured at the top of our atmosphere is going.
Seventh piece: Sea surface pressure has changed as predicted with greenhouse warming. (Gillette et al., 2003).
Eighth piece: Precipitation changes consistent with prediction (Zhang et al. 2003)
Ninth piece: Increasing downward long wave radiation (Philipona et al., 2004; Evans et al., 2006)
Tenth piece: Decreasing upward long wave radiation (Harries, 2001; Griggs, 2004; Chen, 2007)
Tenth piece: CFACT has rarely managed to tell the truth to the public without serious conservative spin. (all CFACT articles)

Denis Ables
May 13, 2016 at 9:14 AM

The “energy imbalance” at the top of our atmosphere is NOT evidence that co2 is involved. (Remember, Tyndall’s experiments were involved in a controlled environment, a real greenhouse.) Also, a necessary condition for the GHG to even hold was a warming near the top of the troposphere, which despite millions of radiosondes has never been found. That’s conclusive evidence that the GHG doesn’t hold water.

All the computer models ASSUME that h2o (water vapor) is the real culprit, providing a feedback 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as brought on earlier (supposedly by co2). It obviously isn’t happening. You should know that.

Predictions that night would “warm more than days” may be interesting, but, again, is NOT evidence that co2 has anything to do with that.

The prediction that the Arctic would warm faster region? Unrelated to co2 increase. Predictions about sea level rise? Not related to co2 level – been rising since the end of the last ice age.

Hansen’s models? There are numerous models, each with numerous scenarios. There’s about a 97% consensus that the models are not explaining what’s happening, insofar as lack of further warming (according to both our weather satellites) for the past 18+ years. Computer models have been “tweaked” to match more recent data, but still can’t cut it. (And computer model results are not evidence of anything apart from the author(s) understandings and biases.

AGW “pulled out of natural background influencs in the 1980s”? NOT according to balloon or weather satellite data. Why then are alarmists continually talking about temperature increase since the mid 1800s?

“have to bring in human influence after the 1980s…”. ?? That doesn’t even qualify as cherry-picked! That falls back on bogus reasoning, namely, “we can’t otherwise understand what is going on…”, not evidence and hardly justifiable.

And now since the troposphere is not warming, which defeats GHG theory, you instead claim that the “altitude” of the troposphere is rising. Where do you get this stuff, the SkepticalScience website?

You’re arguing that skeptics are ignoring ARGO data? For pete’s sake, NOAA has just overwhelmed ARGO data by introducing ship-board intake temperature data which is known to be biased. Following that recently introduced machination, NASA and/or NOAA now argue that the globe’s temperature has continued to increase.

Sorry, you have not provided any evidence showing co2 level has EVER had any impact on our planet temperature. (Perhaps you could use Al Gore’s book as a link.) Give us the recipe for what you’ve been drinking (while writing). It should make a great party drink!

cshorey
May 13, 2016 at 12:25 AM

Dear readers (a dumb entrance): a “Gish” gallop is not a descriptor meaning “overwhelming facts”. Look and laugh. Ridicule is appropriate here: “a Gish Gallop involves spewing so much bullshit in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it.”http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gish%20Gallop

“The real “wrong-doing” is there is NO science backing the alarmist claim”

Exactly. Teaching a theory as fact without proof is called indoctrination.

Denis Ables
May 13, 2016 at 8:42 AM

Such as the clear claim that they “had to get rid of the MWP”, or their refusal to let McIntyre see their data anymore because “all he does is point out problems” ?

Naturally your response will be that each such statement is “taken out of context”.

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 2:15 PM

There is no quote from those emails that say “had to get rid of the MWP” Try again. Oh, and McIntyre did see the data. He had to actually go to the university website where he found it publicly available. “A few days later, McIntyre revisited the university’s website only to discover the very data he was after: “I noticed a file that was about the right size of a tree ring data set… so I opened it up and read it and thought ‘this is funny, this is the same data they’re refusing’.” And then your point is still superseded by the most recent paleoclimate studies. PAGES dude. You haven’t managed a peep on that yet.

Denis Ables
May 14, 2016 at 3:05 PM

No quote. Strange, I distinctly heard responses from the usual suspects (exposed via ClimateGate) admitting the existence of that quote by claiming it was “taken out of context”.

It was one of the IPCC perpetrators asking McIntyre why data should be provided to him when all he does is find problems. You apparently are admitting that by acknowledging that McIntyre found the data available.

PAGES again? Please. Don’t try to chase readers around the web. The discussion is here, and we’re all anxious to be enlightened by some evidence supporting your belief that co2 level has any impact on the planet’s temperature. If you have a PhD you should be able to put your justification into your own words, right here.

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 3:20 PM

The quote is a fabrication. Jonathan Overpeck’s exact words are:

“I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.”

jreb57
May 11, 2016 at 10:37 PM

“What’s annoying about this is that alarmists want to know which of those studies, specifically, refute their claim.”

All of them. If that is not enough, open any college physics textbook to the section on thermodynamics and read. The text applies to all elements and compounds CO2 included.

Denis Ables
May 12, 2016 at 7:37 AM

But they ignore that data, so ask them to provide evidence, supporting THEIR belief (that’s the way science is supposed to work) and in their own words…… don’t let them chase you around the internet. They NEVER can.

jreb57
May 12, 2016 at 11:06 PM

When you ask them to prove it, they simply give you a link to a website. You can find almost any thing you wish on the internet. The problem is even their own computer models fail to predict temps based on CO2. As the IT guys say, GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. In this case that would be peer reviewed garbage.

cshorey
May 12, 2016 at 10:44 PM

Yes, I read Tyndall’s thermodynamic finding on CO2. And the pressure related thermodynamics expanded upon by the Air Force and Navy. And your first quote is the pot calling the kettle black.

Denis Ables
May 13, 2016 at 8:39 AM

“Tyndall’s finding” was found in a controlled environment, a real greenhouse, not in the open atmosphere which permits radiation to escape to space and experiences various planetary level feedbacks.

jreb57
May 14, 2016 at 12:42 PM

The amount of heat contained in a sample of CO2 is a function of its mass and the specific heat. Depending on the altitude, of the sample more than half of the energy will be radiated into space i.e the greater the altitude, the less radiant energy reaches the surface. This is because the earth’s surface is a positive curve; it curves away from a line tangent to the surface at any point.

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 2:09 PM

Oh, did I just mention the Air Force and Navy studies on thermal weaponry because I knew a denier parrot would say “Tyndall’s finding was found in a controlled environment . . .” What you just posted is an admission that you didn’t understand the significance of the various pieces of evidence and took it upon yourself to point out something I had already addressed. If you only knew.

Denis Ables
May 14, 2016 at 2:32 PM

What is this blather about? I’m still looking for some evidence to justify the warmist cult belief….. ??

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 3:07 PM

Do I have to lead you by the hand? Tyndall got the first step finding the heat trapping gasses like O3, H2O, and CO2 and showed H2O to be the biggest heat trapper for Earth. Langley confirmed this in the real world with bolometer readings, and all this was improved upon in detail after World War II by US Air Force research for communications, operations and heat-seeking missiles. Because CO2 interferes with the heat signature from a target engine, the Air Force had to know how CO2 absorbs at all elevations applicable. And so I had already addressed your point that Tyndall was doing a controlled greenhouse experiment, but you have to now admit that this Air Force research is new news to you. It’s kind of a big deal in this debate.

Denis Ables
May 14, 2016 at 3:17 PM

Working on an Air Force grant, are you? (Follow the money folks).

The problem is that the h2o feedback level is not up to the claim. The climate models which you earlier (laughably) claimed were spot-on, were off course (and getting further off course every year).

Both NASA and NOAA (our supposed experts) were sufficiently desperate to make eggregious claims that each year or month is “hottest”. In fact, the differences in their annual temperature records amongst recent candidate years are miniscule, so well within the uncertainty error. This kind of nonsense is rather unsettling for skeptics (but no problem for most of the major news media). Neither is it ever acknowledged by the rabid believers (?you).

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 3:32 PM

No. I have no grants at all as I don’t run a research program. I’m a teaching professor as that has always been my track. But why would you automatically go there to poison the well. You told me I should have taken a class in logic, which I actually did, and pull that? Now you’re starting to get to some decent science with the H2O feedback, and we know it is less certain than the forcing from CO2. Thanks to those Air Force studies done before I was born (follow the money indeed), I feel confident in saying that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause 1.1 deg C warming. The water vapor feedback along with the many other feedbacks are then coming on line with that initial change. Don’t think that it’s just climate models that have been honing in on a most likely value of 3 deg C for climate sensitivity (though now we risk having to get into transient sensitivity vs. equilibrium sensitivity which I am currently addressing). It also comes from watching volcanic eruptions force our climate, and looking at paleoclimate forcing and responses. It is not rabid belief, but a following of the evidence and logic that say an initial warming will cause more water vapor in the air, which on it’s own is a positive feedback.

jreb57
May 17, 2016 at 10:44 PM

“On “greenhouse” gas – there is no convection across firm greenhouse boundaries, and satellites detect heat escaping to space.”

My understanding is that greenhouses serve to create a different environment inside the greenhouse for the purpose of maximizing plant growth. In that respect, the so called “greenhouse effect” is a misnomer.

Denis Ables
May 17, 2016 at 11:02 PM

Clearly. Also, in some cases extra co2 is introduced – not to increase the temperature, but to feed the plants because apparently the current co2 level is well below optimal for plants.

Start at IPCC SPM AR5
“. where are their studies backing their claim?”

Cites to the papers in journals. Analysis. Conclusions.

Denis Ables
May 31, 2016 at 10:49 AM

On the MWP, co2science.org has links to 1,000+ peer-reviewed studies. In the case of at least two receding glaciers there are recent exposures of splintered tree trunks still standing, dated 1,000 and 4,000 years old. (Trees no longer grow at that latitude in those two areas; in fact nowhere near that latitude. That stands as confirmation of the many temperature proxie studies which previously identified several earlier warmer durations in this interglacial.

Where is the empirical evidence that co2 level has EVER had any impact on the global temperature?

Where is the “hot-spot” in the troposphere about 10km above the tropics? This is a NECESSARY condition which accompanies the GHG/AGW hypothesis?

Those “scientists” claiming that there is “no other explanation” as the basis for AGW are justifying that hypothesis based on ignorance.

Our current warming (such as it is) began, by definition, at the bottom of the LIA (mid 1600s), not the cherry-picked date of mid 1800s, when co2 level began increasing).
That’s 200 years of natural warming. It would have taken another 100 years of co2 increase before it could possibly have had any measurable impact on temperature, so there was actually 300 years of natural warming, which brings us to the 1950s, (but from the 1940s to 1970s was a mild cooling). So, the only WARMING the warmists have is a bit more than 2 decades (from 1975 to 1998.

Both of our weather satellites (which neither NASA nor NOAA use) show no additional warming for 18+ years. (The 2015 -16 El Nino may have interrupted that trend in late 2015, but even NASA has declared that to be a totally natural event.

The poor souls out there are striking out at skeptics because their belief bubble is being popped.

Robert
May 31, 2016 at 10:57 AM

Tell us how you know that. Quote and cite.
“. . .
This is a NECESSARY condition which accompanies the GHG/AGW hypothesis?”

Denis Ables
May 31, 2016 at 12:30 PM

Ask scientists who ARE proponents of AGW. They’ve been struggling with that issue for years.

Robert
May 31, 2016 at 11:02 AM

Point us to the source that supports your assertion.
“Both of our weather satellites (which neither NASA nor NOAA use) show no additional warming for 18+ years. “

Robert
May 31, 2016 at 11:08 AM

A long string of denialist claims. Assertions, really.
If you aren’t willing to make an extensively researched response with quotes and cites, don’t bother responding.
Your claims and assertions, on their very face, are disproved in journals, magazines, newspapers every day. Being a pop-up clown with the same message doesn’t prove you right, it only shows the reader how rabid your thinking ( actually, reciting of denialist blog talking points ) is.

We’ve moved on. The debate now is on best policies for mitigation and adaptation.

Robert
May 31, 2016 at 11:21 AM

They link to 16 articles, seems most are their own….

“On the MWP, co2science.org has links to 1,000+ peer-reviewed studies”

Robert
May 31, 2016 at 11:22 AM

Tell us how you know that. Quotes and cites.

“Where is the “hot-spot” in the troposphere about 10km above the tropics? This is a NECESSARY condition which accompanies the GHG/AGW hypothesis?”

Was told “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” and that is exactly what they tried to do.

Science is not advanced by revising previous scholarly works that prove things you don’t like are true – science is done by going out and doing experiments, observing reality and accepting the logical consequences that flow from those observations even if they aren’t what you wish they were.

An observation that they just refuse to accept is this one:

… the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

Efforts to deny this continue to be a major goal of those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 3:15 AM

Yep, local to western Europe as has been well shown. Have you seen the newest paleoclimate reconstructions. The overview studies of all sources average out sitting right on Michael Mann’s original graph from ’97. Too bad that MWP didn’t emerge from the data. Time to throw it out and move on and stop cherry picking your evidence.

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 9:06 AM

“well shown”…. Shouldn’t be difficult for you to actually show, right?

“cherry picked” ? Righto. Our current warming (such as it is) began at the bottom of the LIA, by definition, around the mid 1600s, NOT in the mid 1800s (which is cherry picked).

That’s 200 years BEFORE the co2 level began rising, so NATURAL. What’s more, at average 2ppmv increase per YEAR, it’s well known that it would have taken another 100 years before co2 aggregate increase could have had any impact on our temp scale, so that implies 300 years of NATURAL warming until 1950. But, wait ! There was a MILD cooling from the 40s to the mid 70s, and both our weather satellites shown no additional increase AFTER 1998, even taking into consideration the El Nino which began in 2015.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 9:21 AM

You responded too quickly to have read PAGES 2pk or investigate the graph I just gave you. Fail.
And your reliance on UHI is now the interesting cherry picked data set. You keep picking those cherries.

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 1:49 PM

MY reliance on “UHI” ? (Pay attention readers)

Both NASA and NOAA use terrestrial data, and not data from our two weather satellites (which agree well with balloon data.) MOST of the terrestrial data comes from temperature stations located within urban heat islands (UHIs). Very little comes from forests, grasslands, moutainous areas, jungles, etc., so not very good coverage of the globe. Furthermore, UHI data is known to be biased (humans are definitely warming urban areas). It is also known that the rural areas surrounding UHIs shows no impact, so no impact on global warming. Thus the raw temperature has to be discarded and replaced by estimates of the local bias, which vary with EVERY station.

Finally, when temperature data is only used for stations needing no machinations, guess what the result provides…..? NO warming.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 2:29 PM

Pay attention everyone. When the BEST team removed the UHI’s they had to admit that it had no effect on the overall temperature assessment, and definitely had no effect on seeing the trends.

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 2:49 PM

Dr. Judith Curry was the lead writer on that study, and wanted off when the lamebrains pushed their ludicrous conclusion.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 3:40 PM

Richard Muller was the lead Denis, keep up. And Judith in the end didn’t contribute anything but review to the paper, and then after passing it and allowing her name on it, turned around and attacked it. Judith Curry runs a weather business for fossil fuel interests. Follow the money.

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 4:17 PM

Not Judith’s story. In fact, to use your argument, Curry was the only climatologist participating on that paper. Muller, by not even bothering to notify her of his bogus claim, is just SOP for the alarmists. Why would you choose to believe Muller rather than Morano? Neither one is a climatologist.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 6:58 PM

Muller gathered a good team of statisticians who did the needed corrections to compare all the data, and they came out with the same as everyone else. Tell me again what Judith did on this paper? What was her response? I’ll tell you, she said there had been no warming for the past decade. You need a minimum of 17 years to see a climate signal (Santer et al 2011). So Judith told us she didn’t even know what climate it is. And more recently she said at the Cruz fiasco “the satellite data is the best data we’ve got”. Uh, no it’s not. It’s electrical impulses interpreted as photons of a certain flavor from a range of atmosphere that has warming portions and cooling portions, then interpreted as with a model to get temperature. And she thinks that’s the best data we’ve got. She is not a good source to lean on.

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 9:55 PM

What hogwash. Dr. Curry was the only climatologist (as you now admit) on the study, probably pulled in to give Muller some semblance of credibility. Those folks were probably fishing for $$ from a government grant.

What’s even more interesting, however, is the fact that both weather satellites show no warming over the past 18+ years, and with co2 level now at its highest in a very long time.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 11:01 PM

What you call hogwash is what actually happened. Mueller was a climate denier and you can find him doing the “Climategate march” before this study. I love that Anthony Watts actually said he would accept whatever the BEST team found, and then didn’t. So like your ilk. Just accept what tells your story, even if it’s crap.

These “warmest year” facts are not true. If you find the original releases they will always include, “…since 2001,” or some such. The records clearly show 1934 was the hottest year in history and caused the devastation of “the dust bowl.” It’s in the books.

Google “Two Minute Conservative” for more.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 11:38 PM

Two Minute Conservate is not peer reviewed. The recent warmest years are not only true, but then there’s the ocean data. Adrian, you’re past you’re prime.

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 1:43 PM

Michael Mann’s study has been DEBUNKED. Among other things, his “hockey stick graph” can be generated by inputting random numbers to his “process”.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 1:45 PM

Michael Mann’s study has been repeatedly vindicated. I think you are reading the plagiarism group study that was shown to be crap.

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 2:31 PM

You are certainly one of the true believers. Unfortunately, global warming is not a substitute for religion.

jreb57
May 11, 2016 at 10:51 PM

“Unfortunately, global warming is not a substitute for religion”

For some it is. The advantage is that GW supports you, whereas you must support religion..

Denis Ables
May 12, 2016 at 8:09 AM

There are plenty of religious folks to support their religion. My obligation is to support the right of folks to practice their religion, but not if their beliefs conflict with or adversely impact my life, or our constitution.

jreb57
May 12, 2016 at 10:11 PM

I agree, but I don’t think it is religion that these people are after. I believe it is money and power and that would adversely impact our lives and the concept of limited government in our constitution.

jreb57
May 11, 2016 at 10:46 PM

BS Micheal Mann’s supposed “hockey stick has been debunked. And how would that relate to a gradual increase in CO2? You are beating a dead horse.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 11:35 PM

Nope, confirmed. Now let’s have fun. Give me the peer reviewed study that debunks Michael Mann and let’s see how this plays out. Shall we?

Denis Ables
May 12, 2016 at 8:10 AM

“confirmed that Mann’s study was valid”. NOT. That “validation” was nothing more than an arithmetic check on his bogus data.

cshorey
May 12, 2016 at 10:51 PM

When I say that I mean it has been replicated in completely separate studies. Your horse blinders are on too tightly.

Denis Ables
May 12, 2016 at 11:40 PM

when you say……. Reminds me of another correlated statement, “whenever your lips are moving …..” (readers can finish that one)

cshorey
May 13, 2016 at 12:27 AM

Readers is me, and I think that was one of the dumbest rejoinders I’ve ever heard. Time to complete the quote. Your statement is one of sound and fury, signifying nothing, told by an idiot.

jreb57
May 12, 2016 at 10:00 PM

I don’t need “peer reviewed studies” when basic physics contradicts your very flawed theory that CO2 somehow adds to the heat budget of the planet. “Peer reviewed” just means you can find another person who agrees with you. Ask Dr. Willie Soon what he thinks causes the earth to warm. Simple logic will tell you that since CO2 accumulation did not display a “hockey stick” Mann’s theories are BS even if he right about sudden temperature increases, which he is not. Are you not aware that over the last 150 years weather stations have changed in both quantity and quality. When you change the sampling, you change the outcome. Are you not aware that some of the same people who now push GW were predicting we were headed for another ice age (in spite of rising CO2 levels) You just have too many holes in the ceiling to keep the water out.

cshorey
May 12, 2016 at 11:22 PM

Satellites measure incoming solar and outgoing thermal IR, and see the energy difference. You ignore that and post a story full of sound and furry, signifying nothing.

jreb57
May 12, 2016 at 10:32 PM

I predict cshorey will ignore that as he ignores the natural laws of physics which tell you that CO2 does not add energy to the atmosphere. In order for the temperature to increase, in a system, one of two things must happen. More heat is added to the system, or less heat escapes. Cloud cover can prevent radiant heat from escaping, but then clouds are not formed from CO2, they are formed of water droplets.

This is another objection without anything to object to. Please confine your ravings to reality.

LTJ
October 23, 2017 at 11:21 AM

No?

“Since 1977, a further 200 or so vineyards have opened (currently 400 and counting) and they cover a much more extensive area than the recorded medieval vineyards, extending out to Cornwall, and up to Lancashire and Yorkshire where the (currently) most northerly commercial vineyard sits. So with the sole exception of one ‘rather improbably’ located 12th Century Scottish vineyard (and strictly speaking that doesn’t count, it not being in England ‘n’ all…), English vineyards have almost certainly exceeded the extent of medieval cultivation. And I hear (from normally reliable sources) they are actually producing a pretty decent selection of white wines.”

Medieval Warming Period was definitely not global. Where did you get that? It was mainly western Europe. Edge of glaciers in single instances used a global measure? What in the world Denis?

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 9:01 AM

WHERE did YOU get that? How about some evidence please? In the meantime, what about the 1,000+ peer-reviewed studies by various investigators (in various countries) representing 40+ countries. (Access to all via co2science.org.

In the meantime please explain what a couple of receding glaciers recently exposed, namely shatter tree trunk still standing in their original position (Mendenhall, 1,000 years old, Swiss Alps, 4,000 years old). Are you suggesting that readers should believe you rather than their own lying eyes?

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 9:18 AM

I got it reading paleoclimate peer reviewed research that have looked into this issue. I looked into it for speleothems in the U.S. and could not see the MWP climate science deniers love to cherry pick. As for your evidence, how many articles do I need to cite? Maybe I just tell you to look into the PAGES 2pk paleoclimate reconstruction groups work and ask you where your precious MWP is.
And you keep talking single glaciers, when a single glacier is a terrible thermometer as all the variables at play. With so many glaciers and all the complexity, you will need to take a more statistical approach, and you can’t do statistics with a sample of one, or even two or three as you’ve tried. You need a minimum of 30. Hmm, I wonder if anyone has done a study including 30 or more glaciers. Yep, link below for the European region below. If you bothered to look at the total set of glaciers, and not so obviously cherry pick the data set, you’ll see glaciers retreating if you have an honest approach. Of course, if you were right, then we would have to explain all the 3mm/yr sea level rise we currently observe all by thermal expansion of sea water. Your physics doesn’t add up.http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/image_large.png

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 9:33 AM

“not a single glacier is a thermometer…” It is the exposed trees which were dated. Do you not realize that not only are there numerous peer reviewed temperature studies from around the globe (links to all via co2science.org) but also 6,000 boreholes? And this is in addition to eyeball evidence.

Are you trying to say that the exposed trees cannot be accurately dated? An interesting argument, given that it is obvious in any event that, at some past date, trees were growing at latitudes where they no longer can grow, so obviously warmer than NOW. (which exposes the alarmist bogus claim about current temperatures being WARMEST.)

Straw man. Of course I didn’t say that. You are using a subset of glaciers, and have not even addressed the fact you need at least 30, and that we have done mass balance for more than 30 and they show loss.
I am saying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which retains heat in the troposphere when it accumulates, and that heat can go to melting glaciers, expanding sea water (enough to answer you on sea level), making the wind blow, evaporating water, warming the land, thawing permafrost . . . Heat can go to a lot of places. Thanks to satellites we can measure the retention of thermal IR and see that it is just what CO2 absorption would predict. We see a warming of the troposphere and a cooling of the stratosphere, just as CO2 heat retention would predict. We see increasing water vapor as the seas warm and the water vapor feedback coming in, just as CO2 warming predicts ( actually predicted by Guy Calendar, 1938)
Your claim SL rise rate is falling is erroneous, and another cherry picked bit of info. I do remember when SL rate slowed a bit when Australia flooded and held so much water on land. But I also remember the more recent studies showing there has been no slowing of SL rise, and in fact it looks to continue to increase.
As for your CO2 timing, you are only discussing the way CO2 acts as a positive climate feedback, ignoring that it can also act as a driver. Therefore, your conclusion is bunk.

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 10:33 AM

“A Subset of glaciers…”: ?? WHAT are you talking about?
The two glaciers are quite distant from one another, both happen to now show incontrovertible evidence that it was warmer during past durations (Mendenhall 1,000 years ago, and the Alps 4,000 years ago). Both also confirm various other temperature studies showing that there were warmer durations in the past.

“co2 retains heat in the troposphere…”. Satellites see heat escaping to space. A greenhouse, with its firm boundaries, is hardly adequate to represent the open atmosphere. There is no convection from within a greenhouse and also no planetary feedbacks within a greenhouse.

You throw “cherry-picked” around quite a bit, but it’s not yet been used for anything relevant. You talk about co2 level affecting sea level (at best that’s only via supposed co2 caused temperature increase) when you can provide no rebuttal to the claim that there is no empirical evidence that co2 has EVER had any impact on the planet’s temperature (even over geologic periods when it was 2,000+ppmv). What is the basis for your claim?

LOOK at a graph of sea level over the past 12,000 years, and it should be obvious to any reader that there was an inflection point several thousand years ago, when sea level rate of increase began falling. Keep in mind that measurement of sea level itself is now so miniscule it’s almost indeterminate, reflected in claims such as rates of “1 to 2 mm per YEAR”. (That’s a 100% variation. As the change in level nears 0 the error in determining measurements, and hence, RATE of RISE gets worse.)

There have been 13 ice ages in the past 1.3 million years, average duration 90,000 years, each followed by a warming period, average duration 10,000 years. The most likely trend to expect is another (now overdue) ice age. As our warming period ends sea level will begin dropping, so a current rate approaching zero is not unexpected. On an annual basis (a very small picture) the rate may go up or down, but the trend remains OBVIOUSLY down.

jreb57
May 11, 2016 at 10:57 PM

According to the laws of thermodynamics which don’t rely on “peer reviewed papers” CO2 can release no more heat than it absorbs which means the contribution to the heat budget is zero. That bubba is why your theory is BS.

“And no, CO2 can’t release more heat than it releases, OR IT DEFIES THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS.”
Than it ABSORBS. learn to read

cshorey
May 12, 2016 at 11:28 PM

You’re right about the CO2 issue, but too ignorant to understand why that is stupid argument. Visible in, thermal IR out means two separate CO2 interactions in vs. out. And when the CO2 absorbs and then emits, it does so in a random direction meaning statistically half back down to Earth. Just that small piece of Earth science is enough to prove you ignorant, and it’s only the tip of the iceberg. Stop thinking you’re a climate scientist. You are far from.

jreb57
May 14, 2016 at 12:22 PM

“half back down to Earth”
Not so. As any good antenna engineer knows, with an omnidirectional antenna, the higher above the earth’s surface you go, the greater the amount of energy will be radiated into space. That is why terrestrial antennas have beam tilt. But even if it did radiate half back to earth, you still have lost half of the energy radiated into which would otherwise have reached the surface. I am not a climate scientist but that does not mean I have quit thinking. I am an engineer.

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 3:01 PM

Did you just compare radio EMR interaction of the atmosphere with thermal IR interaction? You are really a case of, I don’t know where to begin to start teaching you this. How does a hot tenuous gas release EMR? Is it omnidirectional? No,the exit path is a statistical probability sphere around the particle. Half of that sphere is the lower half toward the Earth, and the the upper half travels away from the surface.

jreb57
May 15, 2016 at 8:49 PM

An omnidirectional antenna radiates in all directions. So does a molecule of CO2. There is nothing to make it directional. But you missed the point which is that in your own words you say 50% of the energy is radiated back to earth. That means you have a net LOSS of 50% of the energy absorbed by CO2 But you are a climatologist, not a physicist

cshorey
May 16, 2016 at 12:21 AM

An omnidirectional antenna emits in a more toroidal than spherical pattern, but no matter. My argument holds. A particle that can absorb and thermal IR photon can re-emit it in a randomized spherical probability direction, in the middle of the atmosphere and not posted as a rod in the ground, and have half statistically up, and the other half statistically down. That means some goes horizontal too, but you can figure out the probability on those photons and they possibly/probably get absorbed and re-emitted yet again. I tutored physics.

jreb57
May 17, 2016 at 10:36 PM

Sorry, but you have just made my argument that CO2 does not contribute to the warming of the planet. Any thing that contributes less than 100% of what it absorbs means that what it contributes is a LOSS. It would have to contribute more than 100% fo be a addition and you have already agreed that this does not happen.

cshorey
May 17, 2016 at 11:18 PM

Then you didn’t understand that Ex0=0 but Ex(0<)=(0<). It's basic math.

jreb57
May 18, 2016 at 11:42 PM

Boy you guys are just stubbornly stupid with the blinders on. Even when you slip up and admit the truth you come back and deny it later.

cshorey
May 19, 2016 at 12:22 AM

Like I said, you clearly don’t understand. Would you like to try a comment with some substance and meaning.

jreb57
May 15, 2016 at 9:16 PM

“Is it omnidirectional? No,the exit path is a statistical probability sphere around the particle.”

You said 50% of the energy is radiated back to earth. It should be slightly less, depending on altitude. That leaves you with a 50% (or more) loss. Doesn’t sound like an addition to me. Sounds like you lost 50% of the energy.

cshorey
May 16, 2016 at 12:25 AM

I agree, slightly less until it comes to equilibrium T. If you add more molecules that absorb and instead of throwing 0% thermal IR down, start throwing slightly less than 50%, and now were splitting photonic hairs, you’re going to retain more heat toward the surface of the Earth, thus warming the troposphere and cooling the stratosphere. Modeled first, and currently observed.

It is not quite zero, but it approaches zero. It is about 0.1% if you do the analysis and math as I do in my book “Vapor Tiger” on sale at Amazon.com, $2.99 in Kindle format and they will give you a free Kindle reader for your computer if you do not have a Kindle.

There are no “greenhouse gases.” No gas forms a transparent shield over Earth that controls the entry and capture of heat in the manner of a greenhouse. The term is a comity code for Ph.D.s saying “Let me get away with my BS and I will let you get away with yours.” Academia is just as corrupt as politics. I am the son of two college professors and know of what I speak.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 11:54 PM

Well, that pretty much discounts you from an intelligent conversation on this. How did you get negative energy out of CO2 again?

Two things: Who, what and where? And, you can no longer trust “peer reviewed.” For example, if you check every paper written by Jim Hansen you will see that all his “peers” work for GISS. Jim Hansen directs GISS.

The universities have gotten fat and lazy on Federal grants and will never give them up if they prevent exposure of the frauds. The state of Virginia sued Michael Mann for the $500,000 they had given him. I am not sure how it turned out as it was probably settled out of court.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 11:45 PM

Two things: Who, what and where? That’s three. Adrian can’t count to three and can’t get his head around the fact that he is proposing a giant conspiracy theory of scientists. Yes, we get fame when we say “I agree with them!” Fail Adrian. I can’t pass you in this class.

Sorry but all the more recent research from tree rings in North America to crop patterns in China indicate the Medieval Warming was world wide. Never in history has there been a period like that that effected only one area. It never happened.

Google “Two Minute Conservative” for more.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 11:42 PM

Two Minute Conservative is not peer reviewed. You think slowly.

jreb57
May 11, 2016 at 10:31 PM

The entire GW hypothesis is political and driven by a desire for a global carbon tax which the progressives intend to spend to increase their power and wealth.

My bills are not paid by the American taxpayer and $2.99 is the least I can charge on Amazon.com for a book of this size. Your hero, Jim Hansen, finally wrote a paper to explain his “forcing” concept, that does not exist in physics after nine years of people asking. It is 38 pages, does not include a model or equation and is all gibberish. He charges $38 for that and it is nonsense.

You are claiming ” There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. “, so I’m not really clear on why you need a model. Look at what the 19th century scientists were able to predict about increasing co2 in the atmosphere.
Show us their ‘models’.

A greenhouse is a clear, transparent enclosure made of transparent solid material as it works by the physics of light transmission where at any angle below 45 degrees an incident beam is 100% reflected. From 45 to 90 degrees it is transmitted, in terms of percentage, by (T = sin x 100%) where T is transmission, “sin” is the sine of the angle, from 0.707 to 1.00 from 45 to 90 degrees. The formula is a mathematical model of the phenomenon.

Gases cannot form solids of any kind and effect a transmission of this kind. Therefore, there are no “greenhouse gases” and water vapor dominates the atmosphere by 99.9% compared to CO2 which is both a poor absorber and in very small quantity 4/100ths of one percent.

Robert
May 19, 2016 at 10:14 AM

Really? All your huffing and puffing boils down to your not understanding that the term ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is an analogy ?

Science has a very firm, nearly 200 year long understanding of how co2 tempers our air.

And a hundred twenty years grasp on how effective an insulator it is.

And have been warning us for nearly three quarters of a century to the extent we have been adding it.

And you don’t have a clue….

Thank you for demonstrating the peak of ostrich.

That’s an analogy also.

In spite of thousands of reports, you refuse the science. So that makes you a piece of anatomy or a stubborn animal.
In the form of another analogy.

An “analogy,” or analog, bears as much similarity to the phenomenom being analogized as possible. “Greenhouse gas” has none. It is just that simple. The term is used as one that can be manipulated to the advantage of the people promoting this fraud. Your prose, and writing, suck.

Robert
May 19, 2016 at 1:09 PM

So, really , it just boils down to tinfoil….
“manipulated to the advantage of the people promoting this fraud. ”

Gertrude Stein was right…..

Robert
May 18, 2016 at 1:21 PM

Also, thanks for NOT noting your book rec. was to your own book.

MightyDrunken
May 17, 2016 at 5:50 AM

If you know the Beer–Lambert law you would know that the calculation that water “captures” 1200 times more IR than CO2 is nonsense. A direct calculation gives 30% CO2, 60% water (including clouds), though it depends on how you look at it as the spectral bands for different greenhouse gasses overlap.

I will leave you with this quote from the Journal of Climate from AMS,

A comparison of the observed and simulated emission bands of methane shows good agreement at all frequencies of emission. From these measurements the total downward greenhouse radiative flux at the ground from the methane emission band for a cold, clear winter day has been determined to be 1.7 W m−2 ± 10%

Have you tried that 400ppm dose of iron in your body yet? Chelate it first for full absorption.

Robert
May 19, 2016 at 11:49 AM

Really? All your huffing and puffing boils down to your not understanding that the term ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is an analogy ?
Science has a very firm, nearly 200 year long understanding of how co2 tempers our air.
And a hundred twenty years grasp on how effective an insulator it is.
And have been warning us for nearly three quarters of a century to the extent we have been adding it.
And you don’t have a clue….
Thank you for demonstrating the peak of ostrich.
That’s an analogy also.
In spite of thousands of reports, you refuse the science. So that makes you a piece of anatomy or a stubborn animal.
In the form of another analogy.

Robert
May 19, 2016 at 11:51 AM

Fyi. She is recommending her own book. ….. ask your local librarian why it isn’t in their digital collection.

Robert
May 19, 2016 at 11:53 AM

Note a plethora of claims.
Note a complete lack of citations or links to any sources. (Except her own book)

You just can’t get through to these people. Even when they prove themselves wrong by their own statements, they insist they are right and you are either ignorant or paid by the energy companies. It would be laughable if the world governments were not involved.

If that is the most meaningful, substantive response you can produce then we have nothing to discuss other than where you can become educated or receive psychotherapy.

Greg Henry
May 22, 2016 at 3:40 PM

Sorry to disappoint but that is the only discussion point applicable to your meaningless list of factoids and untruths. And you are a moron for equating the use of fossil to the preservation of jobs, food, Chevrolets and apple pie….. typical right wing prattle.

Greg Henry
May 22, 2016 at 10:18 PM

Wow…. the ability to string together as many buzz words, factoids, and contradicting statements as you just did is a rare skill and you are a master at it.

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 4:10 PM

Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

“CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight per molecule as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat producing 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy, starve the world, cause hunger, riots and wars?”

Go to the American Meteorological Society, look up “CO2 IR Absorption” and then analyze the data, as have I, and you will get the same answer.

“There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover trapping heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses that admit and reflect energy depending on sun angle. Gases do not form surfaces as their molecules are not in contact.”

This is basic physics and you may need a high school physics teacher to explain it to you, but should be of your ilk he may not be capable as they have dumbed down the curriculum. Hopefully, he will be a older man.

“The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, longest ever.”

There are numerous sources on this, but pick something older before the government poisoned the publishers. There are still many published charts that show the truth.

“Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 rises followed temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Therefore temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.”

Here again, the closer you get to the event date the greater the chance to read the truth, but even the most recent prints are accurate enough that you should be able to confirm it.

“Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against meat consumption.”

The same chart that will show you the CO2 IR has a methane chart on it and you should be able to read it unless you are really an idiot.

“Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.”

Google or Bing search the question, “US Energy sources” and you will get a confirmation.”

“Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.””

By far most kids are in public schools so this goes without saying.

Read the whole story in “Vapor Tiger” at Amazon.com, Kindle $2.99 including a free Kindle reading program for your computer.

Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 6:21 PM

“There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. ”

And no supporting evidence.

Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

C. Hithens. “Mommie Dearest”, Slate, 2003

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 6:22 PM

“. For this we should destroy our economy, starve the world, cause hunger, riots and wars?”

And no supporting evidence.

Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

C. Hitchens. “Mommie Dearest”, Slate, 2003

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 6:23 PM

Hawking your own book wo disclosure….
“Read the whole story in…”

Robert
May 23, 2016 at 6:25 PM

“This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.”

Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

The question that is not asked enough is simply stated and must define this whole debate: “What is the ideal global temperature average and who gets to decide?” Further, “How can one average temperature define the infinite complexities of a global climate system.”
Think about it. Any number you choose as the ideal average is so insignificant in the scope of climate history so as not to be worthy of a scoff.
If we happen to be warming the earth, but geologic record tells us that civilization chugged along happily in times past with warmer temps, why all the panic? People might be displaced by the sea. Sea levels have been higher than would be convenient to a lot of east coasters. It is unfortunate, but the possibility persists (and is most likely) that natural processes are doing it and we are powerless to stop them.
On another note:
Why not moderate to incremental development of alternative energies?
I don’t think anyone thinks that oil is an inexhaustible resource that should be solely relied upon, but it is indispensable. So much of our technological advances depend on its use. So, I wholly advocate moving away from fossil fuels for locomotion because crude will be more scare and we will still need it for plastics, industrial lubricants, and myriad other things that we just don’t think about when we have these debates. If we want to continue our standard of living, we will forever be paying people to get oil out of the ground.
Full disclaimer. I am not a scientist. SO, please, insult my intelligence by telling me that I am a lowly fool and should just roll over to anyone who waves a piece of paper with fancy script on it in my face.
I am open to accepting anthropogenic climate change as fact, given a sufficient body of evidence. As Paul Ryan has recently said, “I’m not there ,yet.” Not even close.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 3:27 AM

If aliens gave us a button that could set average global temperature we would fight wars over it, but that has never been the issue climate scientists have been concerned about. Clearly when a new stable equilibrium is reached, we will simply adapt to that and can sustain, but as the global system retains 4 Hiroshima bombs of energy per second, we are dealing with a shifting climate, not a stable one. It is the shifting state that leads to the problems forecast, not a future possible equilibrium.

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 2:56 PM

What garble. Of course we’re dealing with a shifting climate. That’s always been the case, and has (so far) nothing to do with human activity. And you think we can “forecast” this shifting climate?

Do you not understand that this is a nonlinear system with chaotic components?

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 3:37 PM

And through paleoclimatology we have come to understand how it has “always” changed, and through physics, we understand how EMR interacts with CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, and through biogeochemical cycling we can compute residence times of various greenhouse gasses and determine their lifetime influence, and so on. The literature supporting this is too copious.

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 4:13 PM

Any literature you refer to is “too dubious”, not “too copious”.

You insist on arguing but can provide NO evidence to support your alarmist beliefs.

(In your own words, please, don’t try to chase readers around the web looking for links.)

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 6:47 PM

I wouldn’t know where to start with you. Shall I go back to Fourier? Can we jump up to the Air Force and Navy studies after WWII? How little do you know?

Denis Ables
May 11, 2016 at 9:51 PM

It’s easy. For starters:

Provide justification (empirical evidence?) backing your rabid belief. Surely you must have something you can put into your own words. Then justify why you refuse to acknowledge the numerous peer-reviewed studies refuting your claim that the MWP was regional. Calling those studies “cherry-picked” was really amusing, but if that’s all you got…. don’t bother.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 10:59 PM

Justification is the work of Fourier, Tyndall, Langley, Arrhenius, Angstrom, Calendar, Smagorinsky, Manabe, and the freaking U.S. Navy and Air force just to barely hit the tip of the iceberg. You sound like a creationist who asks for the one piece of evidence to prove evolution, not understanding it comes from a convergence of evidence.. What you do you have?

Denis Ables
May 12, 2016 at 8:03 AM

More spin, but nothing new. It is amusing that you put a skeptic in the same category as a creationist.

It is those pushing a hypothesis who must provide justification. Do you really not even understand that? Keep in mind that referring to “authority” is not adequate when it is, in fact, authority which is in question. Most government agencies have political hacks as leaders. Those folks control their agency/org PR and understand well who is buttering their bread.

A few months back Obama went to Alaska and pointed out a couple of receding glaciers, supposedly as evidence of his concern about “human caused climate change”. However, he neglected to mention that there are other growing glaciers, (and this is typical between ice ages) but it turns out that even one of the two receding glaciers he selected, “Exit”, has been receding since the earlier 1700s. That’s a century BEFORE co2 level (the alarmist culprit for global warming) began rising. So, it seems even the fearless leader of your alarmist cult (presumably with access to scientists of his choosing) cannot provide any actual evidence to justify his claim.

Neither can any other alarmist.

cshorey
May 12, 2016 at 11:00 PM

Obama isn’t a climate scientist either you ingenuous individual you. Would you like to stop cherry picking your data now that you’ve acknowledged it’s a bad practice?

Denis Ables
May 13, 2016 at 9:27 AM

You don’t seem to understand the usage of the term “cherry-picking”.

Neither have you ever provided (non cherry-picked) evidence that the MWP was regional. In order to do that any credible scientist (before making that claim) would have had access to global wide temperature studies, but, after one look at the 6,000 boreholes around the globe, would have probably given up. (unless a true believer, in which case, just LIE about it.)

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 2:34 PM

Go back through our conversation and find I have given you at least two examples of non-cherry picked data sets that acknowledge that bias could be a problem: glacier dynamics vs. mass balance, and the PAGES study which synthesizes all current information instead of taking any one that tells their preferred story. When you only consider a subset of the data, or don’t randomize the selection of statistical data properly, you cherry pick your data set to tell your preconceived story. That’s what I accuse of focusing on the MWP, boreholes, and a few glaciers.

Denis Ables
May 14, 2016 at 2:46 PM

Hmmmm. it sounds if you’ve introduce ghish (your definition). Skeptics would merely note that instead of evidence you have provided obfuscation. It’s clear you wouldn’t recognize EVIDENCE if it did exist.

It does sound as if you are classifying, relative to the MWP being a global event, the following facts as “cherry-picked” data, namely 6,000 boreholds around the globe (showing that the MWP was global) plus 1,000+ peer reviewed studies around the globe, with new confirming studies continuing to arrive, (some using newer proxy temperature measurements) plus impossible to refute eyeball data (trees no longer growing as far north, ancient vineyards at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today.

Methinks that ANYTHING can be classified as “cherry-picked:” in that case, thus making the concept useless.

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 3:10 PM

Since our conversation started I’ve been trying to find the 6000 borehole study you keep talking about. It is not coming up with obvious search threads. Could you please provide a direct link to this study, or at least the citation. I’ve done that with my PAGES counter evidence, of which I have not heard a peep from you yet except to deride without knowing.

Denis Ables
May 14, 2016 at 3:20 PM

My goodness! Here’s a hint Try googling at Joanne Nova’s website.

cshorey
May 14, 2016 at 3:39 PM

See, this is why I come here. I don’t know to go look at some persons website for the best science. I usually use science journals like Science, Nature, PLOS, P3, Global Change Biology, etc. So I read Joanne Nova’s site, and saw she was responding to many criticisms about not using a certain website and then she does, but it looked like she hadn’t taken thermal lag into consideration. Continuing to look, I couldn’t find a paper from her on this that passed review, and in fact I started to find more and more red flag problems in her work. Here’s a sample: https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/6000-boreholes-novas-100-years-too-short/

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 11:51 PM

It is easy for those able to understand. You, try reading Tyndall.

andersm0
May 10, 2016 at 1:03 AM

OK Jimmy Kimmel, here’s your big chance to show how confident you are in your own position. Invite 3 of your pro AGW scientists to your show and have them go mano a mano with 3 sceptical scientists. If that’s too cumbersome just go mano a mano with Marc Morano. Your ratings would soar.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 3:25 AM

Marc Marano is not a climate scientist. He’s a political spin expert. You want to debate apples and oranges. Let the scientists do this work.

andersm0
May 11, 2016 at 11:29 AM

Hey sport, if you reread my post and pay closer attention, you’ll note that I said Jimmy Kimmel should debate Morano, not non-scientists. if Kimmel can’t or won’t arrange a three on three of pro and anti AGW scientists. Understand now?

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 11:33 AM

Got it, but why? Let’s just ask the climate scientists. Oh we did. Look, this conspiracy theory that 97% of all climate scientists are in on a scam is laughable at best. What debate do you want to have? How about transient vs. equilibrium climate sensitivity levels. That should be a stimulating debate, but I don’t think Morano would have much to say.

andersm0
May 11, 2016 at 11:48 AM

Clearly you have not read either Cook’s paper on the 97% consensus nor the subsequent rebuttal of its methodology and conclusions. It was not scientists surveyed, but a review of scientific papers. The people who undertook that review included environmentalists and activists, not scientists. They claim to have gone through 12,000 papers. The sorting criteria was mention of ‘global warming’. If an author had four papers, that counted four times as pro-AGW. Scientists like Willie Soon and Fred Singer who are anti-AGW, found their papers in the pro AGW count simple because global warming was mentioned in a discussion as the hypothesis. So you see, the 97% is bogus as hell but the media seized on it and all the unthinking little warmist lambs took it as given. BTW, I have a scientific background that includes advanced thermodynamics. I’ve conducted research and understand the scientific method. AGW is political science.

cshorey
May 11, 2016 at 11:53 AM

Oh, I read Cook’s paper. And Oreskes. And Lewandowski. And the rebuttal was pathetic and still had to admit that with their altered method they still got a 90% consensus. Personally, when I wrote “97%” I knew ahead of time that you were going to ignore everything else I just said and jump on that one point that CFACT devotees love so much. But it is a weak point at best. The 97% figure really is closer to reality. The same few 3% have to be dragged out with regularity: Lindzen, Christy, Soon, Spencer, Singer, Michaels, Happer . . . I run out quickly.